MA 


mm 


NOAIJ  WOKCKS 


W4 


0 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  with  funding  frDm 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/biblenewsoffatheOOworcrich 


,/ 


o 


L/^^ 


JsPCm4*j  ^^  '^J 


fk-^ 


1  -1' 


tjt-j--^^ 


M^^VCA 


^ 


(UI 


%-r 


BIBLE  NEWS, 

OF   THE 

FATHER,  SON,  AND  HOLY  SPIRIT, 

IN 

A  SERIES  OF  LETTERS. 

IN    FOUR   PARTS. 

I.    ON  THE  UNITY  OF  GOD. 

II.    ON  THE  REAL  DIVINITY  AND  GLORY  OF  CHRIST. 

m.     ON  THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 

IV.    AN  EXAMINATION  OF  DIFFICULT  PASSAGES  OF 
SCRIPTURE. 

THE  WHOLE    ADDRESSED 

TO    A   WORTHY   MINISTER   OF   THE   GOSPEX* 


BY  NOAH  WORCESTER,  A.  M, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  THORNTON, 


"  But  to  US  there  is  but  One  Gor>,  the  Father."— St.  Paui.; 

"  This  is  MY  BELOVED  SoN." — Jehovah. 

•*  How  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the   Holy  GhoST 
and  with  Power." — St.  Peter. 


ConcorU : 

Printed  by  george  hough. 


'  ',J(810.  .  ;  > 


cUims  as  ^uv"-.  ■■■  .     pother,  son.  ■»""   -,  .      „{  GoG.  h-  '^'^ 

..  Bibl.  ^««^vf  four  parts.    I-  On  *«  "^';\ue  Character  o£ 

Ties  of  letters.    In  *^  r  Lyy  of  Christ.    W-  "^,,,11  Passages  oE 

the  rea\Divintyanrt  Glory  o_^^^.^_^^  °*„f5;  rn  nister  li  the 

the  Holy  Sp.r>t.  J^„^^^",adressed  ^o  a  ^or^y^^^,,  ,h„rch  ut 
Scripture.  The  «*'.5^„,eester,  a.  M  jastor  j^^^,_st.  PauU 
Gospel.  By.^°fto  us  there  is  one  Gf^-^^^cod  anointed  3es« 
Thornton.    V^Vm  Son'--.3ehovah.    '  Ho^Y^.^St.  Peter.    , 

•  This  is  tny^^.^^fi  Holy  Ghost  and  «'''^^"*,fe  United  States. 
o£  Nazareth  «ith  the  Hmy^^^  Congress  ot  the  ^ 


BIBLE  NEWS, 


PART   L 


ON  THE   UNITT  OF  GOD. 


LETTER  I. 

Introductory  Statements  and  Observations^ 
REV    SIR, 

JLn  solemn  praj^er  to  his  Father,  our  Divine  Redeemer 
said,  "  This  is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee,  the  o>fLY  tkue 
God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast6rn^."  It  must 
hence  appear,  that  no  inquiries  can  be  more  justifiable  nor 
more  interesting  than  those  which  respect  the  true  charac- 
ter of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  So  far  as  we  are  in  dark- 
ness respecting  these  characters,  we  must  necessarily  be  in 
darkness  respecting  the  Gospel  of  Divine  Grace.  To  obtain 
clear  and  scriptural  views  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  has  long  been  a  principal  object  of  my 
study  and  pursuit. 

From  my  infancy,  I  was  taught  to  believe  the  Athana- 
$ian  doctrine  of  three  distinct  co-equal  and  co-eternal  Per- 
sons in  one  God.  And  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  had  any 
doubts  of  its  correctness,  uni:iJ  several  years  after  I  began 
the  work  of  the  ministry.  Believing  it  to  be  both  true  and 
important,  according  to  my  ability  I  taught  it  to  others. — 
But  even  while  I  believed  and  taught  the  doctrine,  1  Wi;s 
often  embarrassed  by  it  both  in  prayer  and  in  ^r  pching. 
In  giving  thanks  to  God  for  his  astonishing  love  in  giving 
his  Son  to  die  for  our  offences,  ihe  theory  has  occurred  v/iiK 
a  chilling  and  confounding  influence.  These  thoughts  would 
';navoiclably  rush  into  my  mind — God  and  his  Son  are  one 


M128819 


4  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

and  the  selfsame  Beiang;  the  $on  could  not  in  reality  die 
or  svffer  any  more  than  the  Father  ;  it  was  only  a  mere 
man  ihM'  sjifFerfed,  tp  whopti,  the  Son  \vlas  mysteriously 
united.  In  my  preaching, 'while  expressing  the  love  of 
God  in  SPARING  not  his  own  Son,  the  same  theory  and 
the  same  train  of  thoughts  would  occur ;  and,  in  some  in- 
stances, both  in  prayer  and  in  preaching,*  the  influence  of 
these  thoughts  has  been  so  great  as,  for  a  time,  to  obstruct 
my  utterance. 

Such  embarrassments  had  a  natural  tendency  to  excite 
suspicions  in  my  mind  that  there  must  be  some  defect  in 
the  theory  which  I  had  adopted.  But  the  doctrine  had 
been  so  long  and  so  generally  believed  by  great  Divines 
and  good  people,  that  I  almost  trembled  at  the  thought  of 
indulging  my  suspicions.  At  length  I  became  acquainted 
with  the  views  of  Dr.  Watts,  as  exhibited  in  connexion 
with  the  Memoirs  of  his  life.  These  I  read  with  care.  He 
supposed  the  Son  of  God  not  to  be  a  self-existent  Person^ 
but  a  human  Being  created  before  the  worlds,  and  inti- 
mately united  to  the  Father,  so  that  in  him  dwelt  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  ;  and  that  from  this  union  his  Di- 
vinity resulted. — His  reasonings,  to  prove  that  the  union 
of  the  Man  Jesus  was  with  the  Father,  and  not  with  a 
second  self-existent  Person,  appeared  to  me  conclusive  and 
unanswerable.  And  as  a  union  with  the  Father  must  im- 
ply as  great  fulness  and  dignity  as  a  union  with  another 
Person  just  equal  with  the  Father,  I  was  unable  to  see  why 
his  theory  did  not  support  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  in, 
as  ample  a  manner  as  the  Athanasian  theory. 

Another  consideration,  which  greatly  recommended  to 
my  acceptance  the  theory  of  Dr.  Watts,  was  this,  it  freed 
me  from  those  distressing  embarrassments  which  I  had 
formerly  felt  in  prayer  and  in  preaching.  For  on  his  the- 
ory, the  real  Person^  who  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  was 
the  real  Sufferer  on  the  cross. 

Having  obtained  this  relief  to  my  mind,  I  rested  prettv 
quietly  for  several  years  as  a  believer  in  Watts's  theory  of 
the  Trinity.  But  my  apprehensions  and  ideas  were  so  in- 
distinct, that  I  indulged  no  thought  of  writing  on  the  subject 
with  any  view  to  publication,  until  the  year  180r»  In  the 
course  of  that  year,  my  attention  was  in  a  peculiar  manner 
^rrcsted  by  the  natural  import  of  this  text,  "  But  to  us  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father^  of  whom  are  all  things,  and 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  ^ 

we  in  him  ;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  by  him."*  I  noted,  that  in  this  verse  the 
apostle  was  exhibiting  the  faith  of  Christians,  in  contrast 
with  the  faith  of  Heathens.  In  the  preceding  verse  he  had 
said,  '•  For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether 
in  heaven  or  in  earth,  (as  there  be  gods  many  and  lords 
many.'')  Such  is  the  faith  of  the  Heathen  world.  With  this 
he  contrasts  the  faith  of  Christians,  "  But  to  us  there  is  but 
ONE  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  m 
him ;  and  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  are  all 
things,  and  we  by  him."  The  ideas  which  appealed  to  me 
to  He  plainly  on  "the  face  of  this  text,  were  these  : 

1.  That  the  one  sel^-existent  God  is  one  Person, 
viz.  the  Father.  The  apostle  does  not  say,  But  to  us 
there  is  but  one  God,  yet  this  one  G^od  is  three  Persons. 
His  language  is,  "  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Fa- 
ther." He  distinctly  names  the  Person  whom  he  stiles 
the  ONE  God,  and  calls  him  the  Father. 

2.  That  this  one  God  is  the  Fountain  or  Source  of  all 
things — "  OF  whom  are  all  thmgs.^'*^ 

3*  That  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  Lord,  is  a  Person  as  dis- 
tinct from  the  Being  of  God  as  he  is  from  the  Person  of 
the  Father.  After  the  apostle  had  distinctly  told  who  is 
the  one  God,  he  then  proceeded  to  say,  "  and  one  Lord, 
Jesus  Christ."  As  he  had  named  the  one  God,  so  he 
also  named  the  one  Lord. 

4.  That  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  Lord,  is  the  Medium 
or  Agent,  through  whom  or  by  whom  God  displays  his 
fulness  in  the  production  of  events — *■'  by  xvhoin  are  all 
things^  andzve  by  him»*^ 

Such  being  the  views  I  had  of  the  text,  a  field  was  open^ 
ed  which  appeared  clear,  spacious,  and  delightful.  Thisv 
field  I  entered,  and  began  to  write  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  in  a  great  measure  conformable  t-o  the  views  of 
Dr.  Watts.  Nearly  two  years  my  mind  was  absorbed  in 
these  inquiries,  and  my  mind  employed  in  writing  on  the  fprruu 
subject.  1  wrote  pretty  largely,  and  thought  I  had  pro- 
duced something  which  might  be  useful  to  the  public. 

But  while  writing  for  the  press,  it  frequently  occurred 
to  my  mind  that  the  dejinitwe  and  eniphatical langusi^t  used 
in  Scripture  respecting  the  Son  of  God,  did  import  a  high-- 
cr  character  than  is  implied  in  Watts's  theory— -that  the^  . 

*  I.  Cor.  viii.  6. 


6  On  the  Unity  of  God. 

terms  OWN  Son,  ovly  begotten  Son,  &g.  did  import  that 
Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  in  the  mpst  strict  and  proper 
sense  of  the  terms.  After  I  had  written  what  I  intended 
for  the  press,  that  idea  became  more  and  more  impressed 
on  my  mind  as  the  natural  meaning  of  the  word  of  God, 
But  though  I  could  not  find  tliat  an}^  person  had  ventured 
to  advance  the  idea,  1  viewed  it  to  be  my  duty  to  examine 
the  point  with  the  utmost  care.  This  I  have  attempted  to 
do ;  and  the  result  of  my  inquiries  on  that  point  is  this, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  as  truly  the  Son  of  God,  as  Isaac  vvas 
the  son  of  Abraham ;  and  that  this  view  of  the  matter  is 
essential  to  a  due  estimation  of  the  love  of  God  as  display- 
ed in  the  Gospel  of  his  Grace.  It  is  also  my  real  belief, 
that  this  view  of  the  subject  will  be  found  much  better  to 
harmonize  with  the  Scriptures,  and  unspeakably  more 
HONORARY  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son,  than  any  other 
hypothesis  which  has  been  advanced. 

Having,  therefore,  experienced  such  a  revolution  in  my 
own  views,  I  have  occasion  to  wr'te  anew  on  the  subject* 
I  have  concluded  to  write  in  the  form  of  Letters,  and  to 
address  theni  to  you,  as  to  a  candid  l^riend  and  Brother 
in  Christ. 

While  writing  on  my  former  ground,  I  derived  some 
consolation  from  the  thought  that  my  views  harmonized 
with  the  theory  of  Dr.  Watts.  I  am  now  in  a  measure  de-- 
prived  of  that  source  of  consolation ;  but  I  have  another 
which  I  esteem  much  more  important,  viz.  that  my  views 
now  harmonize  with  the  most  obvious  and  natural  meaning 
of  the  language  cf  God,  of  Christ,  and  his  Apostles  j 
and  that  if  I  am  in  an  error,  my  error  has  not  resulted  from 
departing  from  the  natural  import  of  Scripture  language, 
but  irom  prefer  ring  that  \.o  a  meaning  which  i^foreign^fig- 
urative^  or  mystical. 

There  is  one  formidable  objection  to  my  views,  which  I 
have  to  meet  in  the  verv  threshold  of  my  communications 
on  this  subject.  I  may  therefore  now  state  and  answer  it, 
that  the  way  may  be  opened  for  a  candid  hearing. 

It  is  said,  that  my  views  imply  a  departure  from  a  great 
and  important  article  of  the  orthodox  faith,  which  has  for 
jnan)^  centuries  been  admitted  by  the  great  body  of 
the  most  pious  Christians,  and  has  been  advocated  by 
great  numbers  of  learned  and  pious  Divines  ;  that  it  has 
^on^  been  admitted  as  .an  article  of  Christian  faith,  thaj 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  t 

there  are  three  distinct,  co-equal,  and  self-existent  Per^ 
sons  in  the  one  God  ;  and  that  it  would  be  reproachful  to 
the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  to  suppose  that  he  would 
suffer  his  most  faithful  friends  to  be  so  long  in  an  error  on 
a  point  of  so  great  importance. 

This,  I  confess,  has  appeared  to  me  the  most  weighty 
objection  which  has  ever  been  stated  against  the  theory  I 
have  adopted.  I  shall  therefore  attempt  a  serious  and  can- 
did reph'. 

1.  I  have  no  inclination  to  doubt  either  the  piety  or  the 
learning  of  those  D  vines  who  have  advocated  the  doctrine 
of  three  distinct  Persons  in  one  God.  Many  such,  I  doubt 
not,  have  already  been  admitted  into  the  realms  of  bliss, 
and  others  I  believe  are  in  the  way  which  leads  to  the  same 
state.  Some  of  this  class  of  Divines  with  whom  I  am  ac- 
quainted, I  esteem  as  the  excellent  of  the  earth,  and  as 
vastly  my  superiors  in  piety,  learning,  and  discernment. 
'But  fallibility  has  been  the  common  lot  of  Christians,  as 
long, at  least,  as  the  Athanasian  theory  has  been  received  as 
the  orthodox  faith.  And  among  all  the  great  and  good 
Divines,  I  cannot  find  one  who  has  ever  given  evidence  of 
infallibility.  Great  and  good  Divines,  like  other  good 
people,  have  been  liable  to  err.  And  I  cannot  find,  that 
Christ  ever  promised  that  he  would  not  suffer  his  church, 
to  fall  into  any  error  in  sentiment  respecting  the  character 
of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Therefore, 
however  improbable  it  may  appear  to  you  that  there  is  any 
incorrectness  in  the  doctrine  which  has  been  so  long  and 
So  generally  received,  and  so  ably  and  abundantly  advo- 
cated, the  possibility  that  there  may  be  incorrectness  must 
be  admitted.  An  investigation,  therefore,  may  be  highly 
proper  and  useful. 

2.  I  would  ask.  Is  it  not  a  truth,  that,  for  many  cen- 
turies, the  doctrine  before  us  has  ht^n  popular — so  popu- 
lar that  a  man  must  run  the  hazard  of  losing  h-.s  reputation 
for  piety,  if  he  should  call  in  question  its  correctness  I 
And  would  not  such  a  state  of  things  naturally  preclude 
any  general,  thorough,  and  impartial  examination  of  the 
subject  t  Would  not  many,  even  among  good  people  and 
good  Ministers,  be  likely  to  choose  to  take  it  for  granted 
that  the  popular  doctrine  is  true,  and  content  themselves 
with  searching  the  Scriptures  for  texts  to  support  it  I  Such 
^  course  of  proceeding,  I  confess^  I  adopted  for  a  number 


$  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

of  years.  Such  was  my  veneration  for  the  characters  of 
those  writers  \-  ho  had  defended  the  theory,  that  it  seemed 
to  me  safe  to  follow  them.  My  objeit,  therefore,  in  study- 
ing on  the  subject,  was  merely  to  support  the  doctrine.  I 
do  not  know  that  others  have  been  so  deficient ;  but  if  they 
have,  this  may  be  one  reason  vvhy  the  doctrine  has  been  so 
long  ?nd  so  generally  admitted. 

The  proposition,  which  affirms  that  there  are  three  dis- 
tinct Persons  in  one  God,  is  surely  not  a  Bible  propositton 
—I  am  willing  to  admit  it  as  a  proposition  formed  by  good 
men  to  express  their  mews  of  the  meaning  of  God's  word. 
But  we  have  the  Bible  before  us,  as  well  as  those  \>  ho 
formed  the  proposition,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  bring  the 
doctrine  to  the  Bible  for  examination^  and  not  merely  for 
support. 

3.  Do  not  your  peculiar  sentiments,  as  a  Hopkinsian, 
imply  a  departure  from  doctrines  which  have  been  con- 
sidered as  highly  importa-t,  which  have  been  generally 
received  ior  several  centuries  by  the  most  pious  Christians, 
and  which  have  been  advocated  by  multitudes  of  great 
and  good  Divines  ?  Why  were  you  not  afraid  of  im- 
peaching the  character  of  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
by  adopting  sentiments  in  a  manner  which,  in  your  own 
view,  wou^d  imply  that  he  had  suffered  his  most  faithful 
friends  for  a  long  time  to  be  in  an  error  on  some  impor- 
tant points  ?  Why  were  you  not  contented  to  receive  for 
truth  the  theories  of  our  pious  forefathers,  and  thus  have 
saved  yourself  the  trouble  of  laborious  investigation,  and 
from  the  reproa  hes  of  those  who  have  viewed  you  as  de- 
parting from  doctrines  which  have  long  been  received  by 
the  pious  and  faithful  friends  of  Christ  ?  It  does  not,  Sir, 
appear,  that  our  Hopkinsian  brethren  have  been  much 
afraid  of  impeaching  the  character  of  Christ,  by  preaching 
and  writing  what  they  have  thought  to  be  the  truth,  altho', 
in  some  respects,  they  contradicted  theories  which  have 
long  been  received  as  essential  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  I  willingly  admit,  that  the  great  body  of  Christ's 
faithful  friends  have  been  so  far  united,  as  to  adopt,  as  an 
article  of  faith,  a  proposition  which  affirms  three  distinct 
Persons  in  one  God.  But  is  it  not  a  solemn  truth,  that  nine- 
teen twentieths  of  those,  who  have  professed  to  believe  the 
article,  have  never  examined  the  terms  of  the  proposition 
so  as  to  be  able  to  tell  in  what  sense  they  believed  it  to  be 


t)n  the  Unity  of  God.  ^ 

tnie  ?  Arid  liave  tiot  the  great  and  pious  Divines  in  every 
age,  since  the  proposition  was  adopted,  been  greatly  divid- 
ed as  to  its  real  import  f 

Mr*  Jofles,  and  some  others,  have  informed  us,  that  by 
the  THREE  Persons  they  mean  three  distinct  Agents. 
But  Dr.  Hopkins  says,  ''  It  must  be  carefully  observed, 
that  when  this  word  is  applied  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  as  three  distinct  Persons,  it  does  not  im- 
port  the  same  distinction  as  when  applied  to  men."  But 
he  does  not  pretend  to  be  able  to  tell  what  the  word  does 
import^  as  applied  to  the  Godhead*  There  are  other  Min- 
isters who  frankly  own  that  they  know  not  what  is  intended 
by  Persons  in  the  proposition. 

Dr.  Watts,  in  his  day,  said,  "  The  common  or  scholas- 
tic explication  of  the  Trinity,  which  has  been  long  and 
universally  received,  and  been  called  orthodox,  is,  that 
God  is  but  one  simple,  infinite,  and  eternal  Spirit :  Hence 
it  follows,  that  the  Divine  essence,  powers,  and  essential 
properties  of  the  Father,  the  Son^  and  the  Spirit,  in  the 
Godhead,  are  numer." call v  the  very  same:  that  it  is  the 
same  numerical  consciousness,  understanding,  will,  and 
power,  which  belongs  to  the  Father,  that  also  belongs  to 
the  Son  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit :  and  that  the  sacred  Threfe 
are  distinguished  only  by  the  super added^  relative  propers- 
ties  of  paternity^  jiliation^  and  precession*"* 

Perhaps  the  v^oxA  procession  should  have  been  used,  in- 
stead of "  precession  /'  but  I  have  given  the  word  as  I 
found  it  in  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Watts,  page  98. 

If  Dr.  Watts  gave  a  true  account  of  what  had  "  been 
long  and  universally  received"  as  ihe  orthodox  faith,  Mr* 
Jones  and  those  who  agree  with  him  in  sentiment  have 
greatly  departed  from  the  orthodox  faith.  The  orthodox 
faith,  according  to  Dr.  Watts,  implied  no  more  than  one 
infinite,  self-existent  Agent ;  the  terms  Father^  Son^  and 
Holy  Ghost^  denoted  "  superadded,  relative  properties." 
But  Mr.  Jones  supposes  three  distinct  Agents. 

Some,  by  the  three  distinct  Persons,  have  understood 
no  more  than  one  Being  acting  in  three  distinct  offices.  The 
same  Person  or  Being  is  Father  as  Creator^  Son  as  Re^ 
deemer^  and  Holy  Ghost  as  Sanctifier,  This  may  har- 
monize with  t!\e  doctrine  of  "  superadded,  relative  prop^ 


•rtie^. 


B 


10  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  "  Memoirs  of  Dr.  Watts,"  the 
tvriter  says,  "  If  I  understand  the  greatj  Reform-r  Calvin 
aright,  he  in  like  manner  conceived  of  the  Word  and 
Spirit  as  the  Wisdom  and  Power  of  Deity  personified. 
The  pious  Mr.  Baxter  adopted  a  like  personification." — 
The  same  writer  quotes  from  Mr.  Baxter  a  passage,\vhich 
shows  that  there  had  been  other  methods  still  of  explaining 
the  personality  of  the  Trinity. 

"  Abundance  of  heretics,"  says  Mr.  Baxter,  "  have 
troubled  the  church  with  their  self-devised  opinions  about 
the  Trinity,  and  the  Person  and  nature  of  Christ.  And  I 
am  loth  to  say  how  much  many  of  the  orthodox  have 
troubled  it  also,  with  their  self-conceited,  misguided  and 
uncharitable  zeal  against  those  they  judged  heretics.  I 
would  advise  the  reader  to  be  none  of  them  that  shall  charge 
■with  heresy  all  those  who  say  that  the  three  Persons  are 
Dcus  seipsinn  inteUigens^  Dcics  a  seipso  mtcllectus^  ct  Deiis- 
a  seipso  A?nafus^  (though  I  am  not  one)  nor  yet  those  ho- 
ly men  whom  I  have  cited,  and  many  others,  who  expressly 
say  that  Potentia^  Sapientia^  et  Amor^  Power,  Wisdom, 
and  Love,  are  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost." 

Thus,  Sir,  we  may  see  how  the  great  and  pious  Divines, 
"with  which  God  has  blessed  his  church,  have  been  divided 
in  their  real  opinions  of  the  meaning  of  a  proposition  which 
they  all  had  adopted  as  an  article  of  faith.  One  class  out 
of  six  has  agreed  with  you  in  sentiment,  that  by  the  thre^e 
Persons  are  intended  three  distinct  Agents  ;  a  second  class 
uses  the  term  Persons  in  an  indefinite  sense,  without  ex- 
planation ;  a  third,  by  three  Persons,  understands  three 
offices ;  the  fourth  supposes  one  proper  Person,  and  His 
Wisdom  and  Power  personified  for  the  other  to  Persons  ; 
the  fifth  supposes  the  three  Persons  to  be  three  principal 
attributes  of  God^  Power ^  Wisdom^  and  Love  ;  the  other 
supposes  the  personality  to  mean  no  more  than  this,  God 
understanding  himself  God  understood  by  himself  and  God 
loving  himself 

Of  what  use,  Sir,  to  Christianity,  can  that  proposition 
be,  which  is  thus  variously  understood  by  the  best  Divines  ? 
While  there  is  so  great  a  variety  of  real  opinion  about  the 
import  of  the  artic.e,  their  agreeing  to  adopt  it  as  an  article 
of  faith  can  be  no  evidence  of  its  correctness.  But  is  not 
the  disagreement  as  to  the  import  of  the  word  Person^  in 
ilie  proposition,  some  evidence  that  the  word  is  improper 


A 


On  the  Unity  of  God.  11 

ly  used  ?  You  cannot  justly  accuse  me  of  diiTering  more  in 
real  opinion  from  those  who  have  adopted  this  article,  than 
thev  differ  from  each  other.  And  I  would  suggest  it  for 
your  serious  consideration,  whether  your  departure  from 
the  ancient  orthodox  faith  is  not  infinitely  greater  than, 
mine — yea,  greater  by  two  infinities  ?  You  suppose  three 
self-existent,  infinite  Agents;  I  suppbse  but  one;  and  if 
Dr.  Watts  fairly  stated  the  explication  of  the  Trinity, 
which  had  "  been  long  and  imiversally  received,"  as  ortho- 
dox, the  ancient  orthodoxy  implied  but  one  infinite  Agent. 
And  with  his  statement  agre*  s  all  but  one  of  the  several 
explanations  v/hich  have  been  enumerated  ;  the  personality 
v/as  evidently  understood  as  figurative. 

The  evidence  we  have  before  us,  that  great  and  good 
men  have  been  greatly  divided  on  the  subject  of  the  person- 
ality of  the  Trinity,  may  serve  to  evince  the  propriety  of 
the  caution  given  by  Mr.  Baxter  against  induginga  cen> 
sorious  spirit  one  towards  another.  The  more  deep  and 
mysterious  the  subject,  the  more  occasion  we  have  for  self- 
diffidence,  and  the  more  room  for  the  exercise  of  Christian 
candor  towards  those  who  may  d  flfer  from  us  in  opinion. 

The  experience  I  have  had  of  my  own  fallibility  may  be 
considered  as  an  admonition  to  me  against  indulging  a  se'f- 
confident  spirit  respecting  the  correctness  of  my  present 
views.  I  have  indeed  been  long  searching  and  laboring, 
by  night  and  by  day,  to  ascertain  the  truth,  and  to  bring 
my  views  to  harmonize  with  the  meaning  of  the  word  of 
God.  But  I  am  yet  far  from  any  claim  to  ir;faliibility.  I 
can  hardly  expect  that  I  shal  be  free  from  m  stakes  in  ex- 
plaining the  numerous  passages  of  Scripture  which  will 
naturally  come  under  consideration.  But  this  I  know,  that 
I  have  no  interest  to  serve  by  perverting  or  misapplying  the 
Scriptures.  It  is,  I  hope,  my  aim,  to  act  faithfully  for 
Christ  in  attempting  to  explain  his  word ;  and  with  him  I 
may  safely  leave  the  event. 

I  am  not  insensible  that  I  expose  to  peril  the  little  share 
of  reputation  which  I  have  hitherto  possessed,  by  taking 
ground  so  singular  and  unpopular.  Nor  am  I  at  all  indif- 
ferent as  to  the  esteem  and  good  will  of  my  fathers  and 
brethren  with  whom  I  have  been  in  fellowship.  My  esteem 
for  them  is  not  at  all  abated  by  any  change  in  my  own  sen- 
timents ;  and  it  is  my  wish  to  give  them  no  occasion  of  of- 
fence in  my  manner  of  writing.     It  will  be  my  duty  to  ex- 


li2J  On  the  Unity  ofG^d. 

pose  wKat  T  esteem  to  be  erroneous  in  their  sentfments  ;  hue 
I  hope  to  do  it  in  the  spirit  of  meekness,  of  candor,  and  of 
love.  Mv  dissenting  from  them  in  opiilion  is  surely  no 
reason  why  I  should  be  offended  with  them  ;  and  I  am  not 
sensible  that  it  is  a  reason  why  they  should  be  offended  with 
me.  But  should  they  view  my  dissent  as  ground  of  offence, 
I  hope  they  will  deal  with  me  in  a  Gospel  temper^  and  on 
Gospel  principles^  duly  bearing  in  mind  that  bitter  revilings 
and  sound  reasonings  are  things  of  a  very  different  nature. 

Thiee  principal  propositions  I  shall  attempt  to  illustrate 
and  support,  in  the  course  or  my  Letters  to  you — viz. 

I.  That  the  self-ex  stent  God  is  only  one  Person. 

II.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  God's  own  Son,  his  only  be- 
gotten. 

III.  That  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is  intended  the  fulness  of 
God^  or  the  efficient,  productive  emanations  of  Divine  ful- 
ness. 

In  support  of  the  first  proposition,  I  shall,  in  my  next  Let- 
ter, distinctly  consider  what  is  meant  by  the  word  Person^ 


LETTER  IL 

Personality  defined  and  illustrated^ 
REV    SIR, 

IT  has  been  supposed  to  be  a  very  difficult  thing  to  as-, 
certain  in  what  personality  consists,  or  what  constitutes 
personality.  It  may,  however,  be  found  an  easy  thing  to 
tell  what  is  meant  by  the  word  Person^  as  it  is  used  in 
Scripture,  and  in  common  discourse.  I  will  exhibit  a  few 
instances  of  the  use  of  the  term  in  the  Scriptures. 

'^Noah  the  eighth  Person."  "Joseph  was  a  goodly 
Person."  *^  No  uncircumcised  Person  shall  eat  thereof." 
*^  Whosoever  hath  killed  any  Person."  "  Goest  to  battle 
in  thine  own  Person."  "  A  righteous  Person."  "  A 
wicked  Person."     "  Thy  Person."     "  His  Person." 

Such  a  manner  of  using  the  term  is  common  in  all  writ- 
ings with  which  I  am  acquainted.  We  apply  the  term 
Person  to  any  man,  or  woman,  to  an  Angel,  to  Jesus  Christ, 
and  to  God.  But  we  do  not  apply  it  to  any  class  of  beings 
b^low  the  human  race.     Personal  pronouus,  as  he  or  shc^ 


0?i  the  Uniti/  cj  God,  13 

Sec,  we  apply  to  the  brutal  creation  ;  but  it  would  be  thought 
an  impropriety  ot  speech  to  apply  the  term  Person  to  the 
most  sagacious  horse  or  dog.  By  careful  observation,  it 
will  be  found  that  we  use  the  personal  pronouns  in  refer- 
ance  to  anv  beings  which  are  supposed  to  possess  animal 
life  ;  but  the  word  Perscm  is  properly  applied  only  to  intel- 
ligent Beings,  Inanimate  objects,  in  figurative  language, 
are  often  personified  ;  but  the  very  idea  and  mode  of  per- 
sonification implies  what  is  intended  by  the  word  Person^ 
viz.  an  intelligent  Being. 

What  is  meant  by  the  word  Person^  is  just  as  obvious 
to  common  people  as  what  is  meant  by  the  moon.  And  we 
have  no  more  occasion  to  inquire  what  constitutes  person- 
ality in  order  to  tell  what  is  meant  by  the  word  Person, 
than  we  liave  to  ascertain  the  essence  of  the  moon  in  order 
to  tell  what  object  is  called  by  that  name.  And  it  is  no 
more  difficult  to  ascertain  what  constitutes  personality,  than 
to  ascertain  what  constitutes  inteligent  existence. 

It  may  be  objected,  that  there  is  no  part  or  property  of  a 
man  but  what  is  spoken  of  in  the  possessive  case,  as  though 
it  were  something  distinct  from  personality.  Wc  say,  his 
hands^  his  feet^  his  head^  his  intellects^  his  hearty  his  body^ 
his  souly  as  though  personality  were  something  distinct  from 
any  of  these. 

This  is  al!  granted  ;  but  in  the  same  manner  we  use  the 
word  Person  itself ;  we  say  his  Person,  And  thus  the  term 
is  used  in  the  Bible,  ^'  the  express  image  of  his  PersonP 
But  it  does  not  hence  follow,  that  personality  consists  in 
something  distinct  from  Person. 

As  one  Person  is  one  intelligent  Beings  so  two  or  three 
Persons  are  two  or  three  intelligent  Beings.  Sa  obvious  is 
this  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  that  it  may  be  doubts 
ed  whether  any  man  can  form  any  other  idea  of  two  Per- 
sons than  that  of  two  intelligent  Beings.  If  it  be  under-^ 
stood,  that  we  are  speaking  of  human  Beings,  and  mention 
is  made  of  two  Persons^  it  as  tlearly  conveys  the  idea  of 
two  intelligent  Beings,  as  if  we  should  say  two  men.  The 
same  observation  will  apply  to  angels.  • 

Some  writers  of  eminence  have  suggested,  or  asserted, 
that  Person  and  Being  are  not  terms  of  the  same  import ; 
and,  therefore,  it  may  imply  no  contradiction  to  say  three 
Persons  in  one  Being  or  one  God.  But  I  have  not  foimd 
t^^-^.^  they  have  attempted  to  explain  the  difference  betweeiv 


14  On  the  Uiiitij  of  God. 

Person  and  Being,  I  shall  not  pretend  that  these  terms 
are  uniformly  cf  synonymous  import,  for  the  term  Being 
may  be  applied  to  any  object  which  Exists,  but  the  term 
Person  is  applicable  only  to  intelligent  existence.  But  the 
phrases,  an  intelligent  Person  and  an  intelligent  Beings  may 
properly  be  considered  as  synonymous.  If  you  think  oth- 
erwise, be  pleased  to  explain  the  difference. 

la  writing  on  Divinity,  it  is  highly  important  that  we 
should  use  language  according  to  its  common  acceptation. 
To  make  use  of  terms,  of  which  we  can  give  no  intelligi- 
ble explanation,  has  no  tendency  to  communicate  light. 
Those  who  make  use  of  terms  in  relation  to  God,  or  to 
Christ,  ought,  at  least,  to  be  able  and  willing  to  tell  their 
oxvn  ineamng  in  the  use  of  those  terms.  If  I  say  that  the 
Father  and  the  Son  are  two  distinct  Persons,  I  oi?ght  to  he 
willing  to  tell  what  I  mean  by  the  word  Person.  And  if  I 
have  any  definite  meaning  to  the  term,  it  may  be  expected 
that,  in  some  way,  I  q^n  make  it  known.  But  if  I  have 
no  definite  meaning  to  the  term,  how  is  it  possible  that 
another  person  can  tell  whether  he  agrees  or  disagrees  with 
me  in  sentiment  ? 

If  I  only  state,  that  I  believe  that  the  Father  and  the 
So  are  two  distinct  Persons,  there  is,  perhaps,  no  Chris- 
tian but  will  say  he  believes  the  same.  But  as  soon  as  I 
explain  what  I  mean  by  the  word  Person,  many  will  dissent 
and  avow  their  disagreement.  Having  thus,  exposed  my- 
self to  their  disapprobation,  by  explaining  my  meaning,  may 
I  not  be  permitted  to  ask  what  they  mean  by  the  term,  that 
I  may  be  able  to  compare  the  two  opinions  \  And  ought  I 
to  receive  it  as  a  satisfactory  answer,  if  I  am  told  that  Per- 
son and  Being-  are  not  the  same,  and  that  personality  is 
something  which  cannot  be  defined  ? 

As  you.  Sir,  profess  to  believe  that  the  Father  and  the 
Son  are  two  Persons,  and  yet  but  one  intelligent  Being,  I 
would  ask  whether  the  Father  is  not  o  e  intelligent  Being  ? 
And  is  not  the  Son  also  an  intelligent  Being  ?  Was  he  not 
an  intelligent  Being  who  came  into  the  world  to  die  for  our 
sins  I  And  was  he  who  came  and  he  who  sent  him  one  and 
the  same  intelligent  Being  ? 

As  you  also  deny  the  human  personality  of  Christ,  or 
that,  as  a  derived  Being,  he  was  a  Person,  and  still  admit 
that  he  was,  in  respect  to  his  human  nature,  tru'y  a  Man, 
I  would  ask  what  addition  would  have  been  necessary  to 


On  the  Unity  of  Goct  \^ 

f:6nstitute  that  Man  a  proper  Person  ?  If  we  deny  that,  as 
a  derived  Intelligence,  he  was  a  Person,  will  it  not  be  dif- 
ficult to  make  it  appear  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  per- 
sonality in  Man  \  Sin  excepted,  what  do  we  find  in  our- 
selves which  was  not  found  in  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  ?  If 
we  take  ground  respecting  personality,  on  which  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  a  human  Person^ 
how  shall  we  be  able  to  show  that  there  is  any  propriety  in 
applying  the  term  Person  to  the  Godhead  ?  It  is  a  clear 
case,  that  so  long  as  we  remain  ignorant  of  the  import  of 
the  term,  we  can  never  be  sure  that  it  is  properly  applied. 

I  have  not.  Sir,  pursued  this  inquiry  with  any  desire  to 
perplex  the  minds  of  others,  or  to  mu'tiply  or  widen  the 
breaches  which  exist  among  professed  Christians,  but,  if 
possible,  to  do  something  which  may  contribute  to  greater 
imanimity.  Nothing,  perhaps,  has  contributed  more  to 
Iceep  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  involved  in  obscurity,  than 
an  mdcjimte  and  unmeaning  use  of  the  term  Person*  I  will 
not  affirm,  that  the  definition  I  have  given  is  perfect ;  but 
I  will  hope,  that  by  frankly  avowing  my  own  views,  and 
exposing  myself  to  the  censure  of  others,  I  may,  at  least, 
be  the  occasion  of  further  inquiry  and  further  light  on  the 
subject. 

Permit  me  now.  Sir,  to  appeal  from  your  theory  to  your 
enlightened  common  sense.  Did  you  ever  conceive  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  one  and  the  same  intelligent  Being  ? 
When  you  thank  God  for  the  gift  of  his  Son  to  die  for  us, 
do  you  not  uniformly  conceive  of  the  Father  as  one  intelli- 
gent Being,  and  of  the  Son  as  another  ?  From  my  own 
past  experience,  I  may  presume,  that,  according  to  your 
common  sense,  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  as  distinctly 
two  intelligent  Beings,  as  Abraham  and  Isaac.  Cf  what 
importance  then  can  it  be  to  Christianity,  to  attempt  to 
support  a  theory  of  personality  which  is  undefinable  and 
ineffable,  which  does  not  accord  with  the  common  accepta- 
tion of  the  term  Person,  nor  with  the  practical  views  even 
of  those  who  adopt  it  ?  Scarcely  any  thing  is  more  obvi- 
ous to  the  common  understanding  of  men,  than  what  is 
usualh^  intended  by  the  word  Person  ;  but  where  the  term 
is  applied  to  the  Godhead,  they  must  be  told  that  it  means 
something  which  cannot  be  explained.  But  if  the  expla- 
nation I  have  given  of  the  meaning  of  the  '  word  Person 
shall  be  found  to  accord  with  the  common  sense  of  mankindr 


16  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

and  witli  the  practical  views  of  Christians  in  relation  to  th** 
Father  and  Son,  nmay  I  not  hope  to  escape  the  censure  of 
those  who  profess  not  td  know  what  is  'meant  by  Person  a« 
applied  to  the  Godhead  ? 

It  will  probably  be  urged,  that  God  is  incomprehensible, 
and  that  the  doctrine  which  affirms  three  Persons  in  one 
God  or  one  Beings  is  no  more  above  our  comprehension 
than  the  eternity  iLnd.  self-existence  of  Jehovah. 

It  will  readily  be  granted,  that  God  is  to  us  incomprehen- 
sible in  his  Bf'ing  and  all  his  attributes ;  yet  in  respect  to 
any  of  his  attributes,  we  can  expl:iin  what  we  mean  by  the 
terms  in  which  they  are  expressed.  We  can  so  explain 
as  to  make  each  other  understand  what  we  mean  by  th<5 
terms  eternity  and  sefexistence*  Let  it,  then,  be  as  intel- 
ligibly explained  what  is  meant  by  Person^  when  we  say  that 
there  are  three  Persons  in  one  Goa^  or  one  intelligent  Being* 

The  incomprehensibleness  of  an  object  is  no  reason  why 
%ve  should  use  terms  without  any  definite  meaning.  God 
is  an  incomprehensible  object  ;  but  in  using  the  term,  we 
may  have  an  intelligible  ar.d  definite  meaning.  We  ought, 
at  least)  to  have  so  much  meaning  to  the  terms  we  use, 
that  we  can  explain  our  oxvn  meaning* 

By  some  good  writers  it  has  been  supposed,  that  the 
proposition  which  affirms  2i.  plurality  of  Persons  in  one  in- 
telligent  Beings  implies  no  contradiction.  But  I  would 
ask,  how  is  it  known  that  it  does  not  imply  a  contradiction  I 
Can  we  affirm  any  thing  of  a  proposition  any  farther  than 
we  understand  the  terms  ?  Let  the  terms  be  explained,  and 
then  we  stand  on  fair  ground  to  judge  whether  the  proposi- 
tion does  or  does  not  imply  a  contradiction.  But  until  this  be 
done,  it  would  be  very  improper,  at  least  for  me,  to  affirm 
any  thing  concerning  it,  one  way  or  another.  Until  we 
understand  the  term  Person^  we  kno  vnot  what  is  affirmed 
m  the  proposition.  And  if  there  be  no  definite  meaning  to 
the  term,he  who  states  the  proposition  either  affirms  nothings 
or  he  affirms  he  knows  not  what.  If  we  think  to  give 
instruction  by  using  terms  in  an  indefinite  and  undefinable 
fiense,  we  most  certainlv  miss  our  aim.  For  no  person 
can  be  enlightened  by  any  proposition  any  farther  than  he 
understands  the  meaning  of  the  terms.  If  then,  in  writing 
*jn  Divinity,  we  use  terms  which  are  undefinable  in  our 
own  application  of  them,  what  do  we  better  than  to  dark'= 
rx\  counsel  by  words  without  knowledge  ? 


Bn  the  Unity  of  Go^.  tf 

The  proposition  supposed  to  be  apostolic  is  this, "  There 
are  three  that  bear  record  in  Heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holv  Ghost."  Neithj-r  the  term  Persons^ 
tior  the  name  God^  is  to  be  found  in  the  text.  And  if  we 
know  not  the  import  of  the  term  Persons,  was  it  not  very 
unsafe  to  insert  it  in  a  proposition  intended  to  express  the 
apostle's  meaning  ?  It  was  probably  with  a  view  to  ren- 
der the  apostle's  proposition  more  explicit,  that  the  term 
Person  was  inserted.  But  however  inexplicit  or  indefinite 
the  proposition  may  be,  as  it  stands  in  the  Bible,  it  surely 
could  not  be  amended  by  inserting  an  undefinable  term,  or 
by  using  a  definite  term  in  an  undi^nohle  sense. 

As  to  the  improper  use  of  the  term  Person,  I  consider 
myself  as  having  been  culpable  as  well  as  others.  And 
while  I  frantly  place  myself  on  this  ground,  I  do  it  in  hope 
that  the  preceding  remarks  will  not  be  viewed  as  designed- 
ly reproachful  to  any  class  of  Christians  or  Divines. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  attempted  to  establish  one  point  in 
favor  of  the  proposition,  that  the  Supreme  Being,  or  self- 
existent  God,  is  only  one  Person.  If  the  account  which  has 
been  given  of  the  word  Person  be  correct,  to  say  that  the 
one  self-existent  God  is  three  sef-existent  Persons^  is  the 
same  as  to  say  that  the  self-existent  God  is  three  self-ex- 
istent intelligent  Beings,  And  if  there  be  a  propriety  in 
saying  that  the  one  God  is  but  one  supreme  Being,  there 
can  be  no  propriety  in  saying  that  the  one  God  is  three 
SELF-EXISTENT  Persons. — But  there  are  still  other  con- 
siderations which  may  be  brought  into  view  in  subsequent 
Letters, 


LETTER  IIL 

The  Scripture  use  of  pronouns  and  verbs  in  relation  to  God* 

REV    SIR, 

ALTHOUGH  the  definition  which  has  been  given  of 
the  term  Person  should  be  admitted  as  correct,  still  it  may 
be  thought  that  a  definition  may  be  given  of  the  term  God, 
which  will  render  it  consistent  to  say  three  Persons  in  one 
God.  And  such  a  definition  has  been  given  by  Mr. 
William  Jones  in  his  celebrated  performance  on  **  The 
C 


18  Vn  the  Unity  ofQ^^, 

Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  In  page  9,  he  saysr^ 
"  Thtj  Word  God,  though  of  the  singuhir  number,  is  of 
plural  comprehension^'*  In  proof  of  thij  idra  he  has  writ- 
ten a  distinct  chapter,  in  which  he  has  evidenced  both  labor 
and  i-  genuity.  And  it  will  be  admitted,  that  if,  in  the 
Scriptures,  the  term  God  be  intended  to  import  three  self- 
existent  Persons^  there  is  no  more  contradiction  in  affirm- 
ing that  there  are  three  Persons  in  one  God,  than  there 
V'ould  lie  in  affirming  that  there  are  three  Persons  in  one 
Council^  or  one  Senate^  or  one  Trhinrohate, 

In  support  of  his  idea,  Mr.  Jones  h;is  not  only  mention- 
ed some  nouns  which  are  plural  in  the  Hebrew,  which  are 
in  English  translated  God  ;  but  he  has  stated  that  there  are 
also  pronouns  and  verbs  of  the  plural  number  agrecifig  with 
the  term  God.  And  it  must  be  acknowledged  that,  at  first 
view,  these  things  appear  much  in  favor  of  a  pluralitv  of 
Persons  in  the  Godhead.  For  according  to  the  establish»-d 
principles  of  Grammar,  pronouns  and  verbs  should  agree 
with  their  nouns  in  number,  I c  then  birhoves  us  to  examine 
the  subject  with  care  and  with  candor. 

Mr.  Jones  has  exhibited  several  instances  in  which,  in 
our  translation,  the  pronnuris  us  and  our  are  used,  as  he 
supposes,  as  proper  pronouns  for  God  only,  and  as  denoting 
a  plurality  of  Persons  in  the  one  God. 

The  first  text  which  he  mentions  is  Gen.  i.  26.  "  And 
God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,  and  after  our 
likeness." — In  reference  to  this  text,  it  mav  be  observed, 
that  these,  pronouns  do  not  necessarily  imply  more  than 
two  Persons,  nor  do  they  necessarily  imply  that  both  of 
them  were  self- existent.  The  representation  is,  that  God 
sp'ike  to  some  other  Person.  And  as  he  created  all  things 
b  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  was  probably  the  Person 
to  whom  God  spake.  And  all  the  piural  pronouns  which 
]VTr.  Jones  has  relied  on  may  be  accounted  for  in  the  same 
Haanner. 

In  respect  to  the  plural  nouns  which  Mr.  Jones  has  men- 
tioned, I  shall  only  say,  that  they  go  as  far  to  prove  a 
pUir  ility  of  Gods^  as  they  do  to  prove  a  plurality  of  self- 
existent  Persons, 

But  besides  nouns  and  pronouns^  he  has  suggested,  that, 
in  the  Hebrew,  several  plural  verbs  and  adjectives  are  found 
agreeing  with  the  noun  God.  '1  his  he  also  considers  as 
evidence  that  the  word  God  implies  a  plurality  of  Persons. 


^  fir 

/  On  the  Unity  of  Cod.  1^ 

Being  wholly  unacquainted  with  the  Hebrew  language,  I 
cannot  pretend  to  dispute  the  correctness  of  his  statt- mtnrs. 
Some'  things,  h<nvever,  mav  possibly  be  sugg^'Sted,  which 
ina\  bt'  sufficient  ground  on  which  to  doubt  the  correctness 
of  his  infi-n-nce. 

1.  I  think  we  have  no  evidence,  that  the  sacred  writers 
were  perO^ctlv  acquainted  with  the  rules  of  Grammar,  n(^r 
that  the  Divine  Spirit,  bv  which  they  wrote,  secured  th tin 
from  everv  departure  from  the  rules  of  Grammar  in  the 
construction  of  sentences. Hut, 

2.  If  it  were  certain  that  the  inspired  penmen  never  de- 
viated from  the  rules  of  Grammar,  it  would  still  be  possib  e 
that  as  many  :\s  Jive  or  six  mistakes,  in  regard  to  the  num- 
5er  of  verbs^  might  be  made  in  copving  the  Old  Testament 
five  or  six  thous.ind  rimes.  For  though  we  have  evidence 
that  great  car^:'  was  taken  in  copying  the  Scriptures,  we  have 
no  evidence  that  the  scribes  were  intallilile.  And  ii,  in  the 
innumerable  copyings  of  the  Old  Testament  prior  to  the 
art  of  Fruiting,  not  more  than  five  or  six  verbs  were  chang- 
ed from  the  singular  to  the  plural  number,  we  have  great 
reason  to  acknowledge  a  suprrintending  Providence. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  endeavored  candidly  to  reph  to  Mr. 
•Jones's  arguments  from  \^\\x?^.  pronouns  and  verbs.  Let  it 
now  be  supposed,  that  mstead  oi Jive  or  six  \\\\X2\  pronouns 
of  doubtful  relation,  he  had  found  ji^t;^  ox  six  thousund  plu- 
ral pronouns  which  obviously  stand  as  suhtitiUes  lor  the 
names  God^  Lord^  or  Jehovah ;  wou  d  not  his  argument 
have  been  at  least  a  thousand  times  more  forcible  than  it 
is  on  the  ground  he  has  produced  ?  Yea,  let  it  be  supposed 
that,  on  the  most  careful  examination,  he  had  found  in  the 
Bible  oxAy  five  or  six pronowis  for  Ciod  of  the  singular  num- 
bery  and  those,  too,  of  doubtful  impon ;  and  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  had  found  all  the  pronouns  for  God,  of  the 
plural  number^  excepting  the  five  or  six  doubtful  instances  ; 
would  not  his  argument  have  been  invincible  in  favor  of  a 
plurality  of  Persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  Would  any  man  of 
sense,  after  such  an  exhibition,  ever  have  called  in  ques- 
tion the  doctrine  of  three  self-existent  Persons?  Confident 
I  am,  that  such  an  argument  would  have  had  more  weighty 
in  my  mind  than  all  the  arguments  I  have  seen  or  heard  in 
favor  of  that  doctrine. 

Permit  me  then,  Sir,  to  retort  the  argument  from  the 
use  oi  pronouns  and  verbs  in  the  Bible,     l^xcepting  those 


^0  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

doubtful  instances  of  plural  pronouns  mentioned  by  Mr. 
Jones,  are  not  the  pronouns  for  God  uxitformly  of  the  sin-' 
gular  number  ?  Instead  of  Ji'oe  or  six  doubtful  cases,  do 
we  not  im6.Jive  or  sloe  thousand  instances  in  which  personal 
pronouns  of  the  singular  number  are  unquestionably  used 
as  substitutes  for  the  nouns  God,  Lord,  or  Jehovah  ? — 
And  setting  aside  IMr.  Jones's  exceptions,  do  w^  not  fiud 
the  verbs^  agreeing  with  the  noun  God,  uniformly  of  the 
singular  number  P 

When  God  speaks  of  himself  in  the  first  Person,  he  uses 
thr  pronouns  7,  Ml/  or  Mine,  Me.  When  he  is  addressed 
in  the  second  Person,  the  pronouns  are  Thou^  Thy  or 
Thine^  Thee,  When  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  Person, 
the  pronouns  are  He^  His,,  Him. — This,  you  must  be  sen- 
sible, is  the  general  and  uniform  use  of  the  pronouns  for 
God,  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New.  It  may  be  add- 
ed, that  Myself^  Thyself^  and  Himself^  are  also  used  as 
pronouns  for  God. 

If  God  were  three  co-equal  Persons,  it  would  be  very 
Siatural  to  expect  that  we  should  find  explicit  evidence  of 
this  in  the  manner  of  giving  the  law,  and  in  the  prayers  of 
saints.  But  when  the  law  was  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  God 
spake  in  the  singular  number,  "  /am  the  Lord  thy  God— 
thou  shalt  have  no  other  Gods  before  me."  And  is  it  not. 
Sir,  a  solemn  fact,  that  in  all  the  prayers  throughout  the 
Bible,  in  which  God  is  addressed,  that  he  is  addressed  as 
cne  individual  Person  ? 

Moses,  David,  and  Daniel,  may  be  considered  as  well 
acquainted  with  God.  Each  of  them  addressed  God  as 
one  Person  only, 

Moses  said,  "  Yet  now  if  thou  wilt,  forgive  my  sin  j 
and  if  not,  blot  me,  I  pray  thee,  out  of  thy  book." 

David  said,  ''  O  God,  to  whom  vengeance  belongs,  shew 
thyself," — not  yourselves,  "  Lift  up  thyself,  thou 
Judge  of  the  earth." 

Daniel  said,  "  O  Lord,  hear ;  O  Lord,  forgive ;  O 
Lord,  hearken  and  do ;  defer  not,  for  thine  own  sake, 
O  my  God  :  for  thy  city  and  thy  people  are  called  by  thy 
name." 

We  may  here  add,  that  Christ,  v/ho  must  be  supposed 
to  be  better  acquainted  with  God  than  any  ancient  Prophet 
or  any  modern  Divine,  addressed  the  Father  not  only  as 
^ne  Person^  but  as  the  "  only  true  God."     As  the  Son, 


fjn  the  Unity  ofGod^  21 

he  addressed  the  Father,  and  in  his  prayer  he  had  these 
words,  "  And  this  is  Hfe  eternal,  that  they    might   know" 

THEE,    THE    ONLY    TRUE    GoD,    and    JesUS   ChRIST    whoHl 

THOU  hast  st-nt." 

I  think.  Sir,  I  may  say,  without  hazard,  that  there  is 
no  intimat  on  in  the  Bible  of  three  self-existent  Persons  in 
one  God,  either  in  the  manner  in  which  Divine  commands 
were  communicated,  or  in  the  prayers  of  saints.  But  in 
giving  commands,  God  uniformly  made  himself  known  as 
one  individual  Person ;  and  as  to  an  individual  Person,  the 
Prophets  and  Saints  addressed  their  prayers  to  God. 

Moreover,  in  all  the  remarkable  manifestations  of  him- 
self to  mankind,  God  made  himself  known  as  one  Person 
ONLY. — When  he  appeared  to  Adam  alter  the  fall,  he  man- 
ifested himself  as  one  Person.  And  in  pronouncing  the 
curse  upon  the  serpent,  as  one  Person  he  spake,  "  /  will 
put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman.  And  unto  the 
woman  he  said,  /will  greatly  multiplv  thy  sorrow,"  &c. 

As  one  Person,  God  manifested  himself  to  Noah.  "And 
God  said  unto  Noah,  The  end  of  all  flesh  is  come  up  be- 
fore ME.  And  behold,  /,  even  /  do  bring  a  flood  upon  the 
earth.     But  with  thee  w'li  /estabhsh  my  covenant." 

In  his  various  appearances  to  Abraham,  he  revealed 
himself  as  only  one  Person.—  "  /  am  thy  shield  and  thy  ex- 
ceeding great  reward^ — I  vvill  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of 
the  earth — /am  the  Almighty  God,  walk  before  me,  and 
be  thou  perfect.'' 

Similar  to  this,  was  the  style  and  manner  adopted  by 
God  in  all  his  appearances  to  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 

In  all  the  manifestations  which  God  made  of  himself  to 
Moses  and  the  people  of  Israel,  he  uniformly  represented 
himself  as  one  Person,  And  thus  he  represented  himself 
in  his  communications  to  the  Prophets.  It  may  also  be 
observed,  that  in  several  instances  God  adopted  forms  of 
speech  which  not  only  implied  a  denial  of  the  existence  of 
any  other  God,  but  also  of  the  existence  of  any  other  self- 
existent  Person. — "  See  now  that  /,  even  /am  he,  and 
there  is  no  God   wkh   me  ;  /  kill,  and   /  make  alive  ;  / 

wound,  and  /  heal."  Deut.  xxxii.  39 "  And  there  is  no 

god  else  besides  me  ;  a  just  God,  and  a  Savior  ;  there  is 
none  besides  me.  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  ye 
ends  of  the  earth  ;  for  /am  God,  and  there  is  none  else." 
Isa*  xlv.  Slj  23,--"  Remember  the  former  things  of  old  ; 


22  6)1  the  Unity  of  God, 

for  /am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  ;  /am  God,  and  there 
is  none  like  me."  j 

When  God  reveals  himself  under  the  title  of  the  Holt 
One,  or  the  Holy  Oni:  of  Israel,  he  represents  himself 
not  only  as  one  God,  but  as  one  Person.  '^  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  his  Maker,  Ask 
3IE  of  things  to  come  concerning  my  sons  ^  and  concerning 
the  work  of  my  hands,  command  ye  me." 

In  conformity  to  the  idea  which  God  gave  of  himself,  as 
being  one  Person  only,  all  the  sacred  writers,  in  speaking 
of  God,  speak  of  him  as  one  Person,  by  using  a  personal 
pronoun  of  the  singular  number,  as  He^  Hh^  Him^  togeth- 
er with  corresponding  verbs. 

The  Sun  of  God,  in  the  course  of  his  ministry,  spake  of 
God  as  one  Person.     "  God    so  loved  the  world,  that   he 

gave   HIS   only    begotten    Son,"  &c And   the   apostles 

uniformly  spake  of  God  as  one  Person  only. — The  Scribe 
who  came  to  Christ,  and  received  his  approbation  as  not 
far  from  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  the  course  of  the  conver- 
sation, and  in  reply  to  Christ,  said,  "  There  is  one  God, 
and  there  is  none  other  but  He."  And  his  remark  was 
approved  by  Christ. 

Nouns  of  "  plural  comprehension,"  such  as  Mr.  Jones 
supposes  the  word  God  to  be,  admit  the  article  the  before 
them,  as,  the  Council,  the  Senate  ;  and  the  pronouns,  to 
agree  with  them,  must  be  either  neuter  pronouns  of  the 
singular  number^  or  personal  pronouns  of  the  plural  num-^ 
her.  Speaking  of  a  Council,  we  either  say  /?  adjourned, 
or  They  adjourned — Of  a  Senate,  It  passed  an  act,  or  They 
passed  an  act.  We  do  not  say  of  a  Council,  He  adjourn- 
ed ;  nor  of  a  Senate,  He  passed  an  act^— Nor  does  a  Sen- 
ate or  a  Council,  speaking  in  the  first  person,  say  /will. 

In  view  of  these  observations.  Sir,  suffer  me  to  present 
to  your  notice  some  of  the  foregoing  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, in  a  manner  conformable  to  the  Athanasian  theory. 
I  will  begin  with  the  passage  in  Genesis,  so  much  quoted 
by  Athanasian  writers,  and  connect  with  it  the  following 
verse.  The  passage,  to  agree  with  your  views,  should 
read  thus  :...."  And  the  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our 
image,  and  after  our  likeness.  So  the  God  creaced  man  in 
their  own  image,  and  after  their  likeness  -,  in  the  image 
of  the  God  created  they  him." 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  m 

If  the  pronouns  us  and  our  are  pronouns  for  God  only^ 
theJbUovving  pronouns  should  be  also  of  the  plural  number- 

tJp on  the  same  principl^^  the  first  commandment  would 
read  as  follows  :...."  Thou  shah  have  no  other  gods  before" 
us. 

When  God  said,  "/am  God,  and  there  is  none  like 
ME,"  would  not  vour  theory  have  required  the  following 
form  ?....We  are  the  God,  and  there  is  none  like  us. 

Would  not  the  words  of  Christ,  to  have  corresponded 
with  your  views,  have  stood  thus  ?...."  The  God  so  lovtd 
the  world,  that  they  gave  their  only  begotten  Son,"  &c. 

The  words  of  the  Scribe,  "  There  is  one  God,  and  there 
is  none  other  but  them" — or  but  it. 

A  remarkable  variation  would  also  be  requisite  in  the 
passage  before  quoted,  in  which  God  speaks  of  himself  as 
the  Holy  One.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  Holy  One 
©f  Israel,  and  his  Maker,  Ask  us  of  things  to  come,  con- 
cerning OUR  sons  ;  and  concerning  the  work  of  our  hands, 
command  ye  us." 

I  would  further  suggest,  whether  another  variation  in 
this  text  would  not  render  it  still  more  conformable  to  Mr. 
Jones'  scheme,  and  even  to  the  language  of  Athanasians  ia 
general  ?  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  the  Holy  three  of  Is- 
rael !"  This,  I  conceive,  would  have  been  a  correct  ex- 
pression of  your  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  Unit)'.  Under 
the  term  Lord,  or  Jehovah,  the  Unity  would  have  been 
implied ;  and  under  the  terms  Holy  ThrEe,  the  Trinitif 
w^ould  have  been  expressed. 

Will  you.  Sir,  be  pleased  now  to  consider  what  a  great 
and  surprizing  change  must  be  made  throughout  the  Bible, 
in  respect  to  the  pronouns  and  verbs  agreeing  with  God, 
to  have  the  language  of  the  Bible  conformable  to  the  Atha- 
nasion  doctrine  ?  You  cannot  be  insensible,  that,  in  every 
instance  in  which  a  personal  pronoun  of  the  singular  num- 
ber is  used  as  a  substitute  for  the  noun  God,  something  is 
implied  contrary  to  that  doctrine.  Of  course,  a  very  great 
portion  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  natural  import  of  language,  opposed  to  that  the- 
ory- If  the  doctrine  of  three  self-existent  Persons  m  one 
God  were  true,  and  of  such  infinite  importance  as  seems  to 
be  supposed  by  our  good  brethren,  how  can  it  be  accounted 
for,  that  God  himself,  and  all  the  sacred  writers,  should  so 
uniformly  adopt  such  forms  of  speech  as  would  nati/ralh^ 


24  On  the  Unity  ofGoa* 

lead  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  one  self-existcnt  God  Is  but 
Che  self-existent  Person  ? 

Mr.  Jr  nes  has  indeed  suggested  th^  idea,  that  the  sin^ 
gular  proDf.ims  and  verbs  are  most  commonly  used  as 
agreeing  with  God,  to  guard  mankind  against  the  idea  of 
more  Gc  ds  than  one.  But  may  I  not,  with  as  much  pro- 
priety, suggest,  that  they  are  thus  used  to  guard  us  against 
the  idea  of  more  than  one  self-existent  Person  ?  or  that 
they  were  thus  used,  that  in  case  any  should  adopt  the 
opinion  of  a  plurality  of  self-existent  Persons,  the  error 
might  be  detected  by  the  current  and  uniform  language  of 
Scripture  t 

If  it  be  a  truth,  that  there  are  three  self-existent  Persons 
in  one  God,  it  is  doubdess  a  very  important  truth.  Nor 
is  it  to  be  admitted,  that  God  should  constantly  speak  in  a 
manner  which  tended  to  impress  the  contrary  idea,  to  pre- 
vent our  falling  into  the  error  of  a  plurality  of  Gods.  Had 
it  been  a  truth  that  there  is  but  one  God,  and  that  this  term 
is  of  "  plural  comprehension,"  comprizing  three  co-eternal 
Persons,  it  would  certainly  have  been  a  very  easy  thing 
with  God  to  have  adopted  language  conformable  to  both 
parts  of  the  proposition.  The  suggestion  of  Mr.  Jones 
amounts  to  noth^'ng  less  than  this,  that  God  made  use  of 
language  whirh  was  calculated  to  lead  us  into  one  errors 
lest  we  should  fall  into  another. 

Would  it  not.  Sir,  shock  the  feelings  of  a  Christian  audi- 
ence, if  a  minister,  in  his  prayers  and  preaching,  should 
conform  his  language  to  the  Athanasian  theory,  and  the  es- 
tablished rules  of  grammar  ?  But  if  the  theory  be  true, 
ought  you  not  to  adapt  your  current  language,  in  prayer 
and  preaching,  to  your  theory  ?  You  cannot  be  insensible, 
that  to  use  pronouns  and  verbs  of  the  s'lngul  r  number,  in 
relation  to  God,  has  a  direct  tendency  to  impress  the  minds 
of  your  hearers  with  the  idea  that  God  is  but  one  Person. 
And  if  you  believe  the  contrary,  ought  you  not  to  avoid 
such  forms  of  spee*"h  as  naturally  tend  to  mislead  the  minds 
of  your  hearers  ?  You  will  probably  retort  the  question, 
and  ask,  why  I  did  not  avoid  such  forms  of  speech  while 
I  was  an  Athanasian  ?  I  answer,  I  was  not  aware  of  the 
inconsistency  between  my  common  forms  of  speech  and  the 
theory  I  had  adopted.  If  this  be  your  case,  you  may  pos- 
sibly be  excused  in  respect  to  what  is  past  j  but  what  will 
you  do  in  time  to  come  ? 


On  the  Unity  of  God,      ,jf,i^,,i^  25" 

To  evade  tlie  argument  resulting  from  the  use  of  singular 
pronouns  and  verbs,  some  will  probably  say,  that  each  Per- 
son in  the  Trinity  is  God^  and  may  say  /  am  God ;  and  that 
when  a  singular  pronoun  is  used  for  God,  one  Person  only 
is  intended. 

In  reply,  the  following  questions  may  be  asked. 

1.  If  each  Person,  as  a  distinct  Person,  may  say  /am 
God^  will  it  not  follow  that  there  are  as  many  Gods  as  Per- 
sons ? 

2.  If  the  term  God  be  intended  to  imply  three  distinct 
Persons^  and  each  of  those  three,  as  a  distinct  Person,  may 
say  /am  God^  will  it  not  follow  that  there  are  as  manv  as 
niJie  Persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  If  the  term  God  do  really 
imply  three  Persons^  then  any  one  who  affirms  that  he  is 
God^  affirms  that  he  is  three  Persons  ;  and  three  times  three 
are  nine» 

3.  If  there  be  three  self-existent  and  co-equal  Persons 
in  the  Godhead,  can  it  be  proper  for  either  of  the  three  to 
say  /am  God,  and  there  is  no  God  besides  me?  Whea 
any  one  Person  adopts  this  language,  does  he  not  naturally 
exclude  every  othei  Person  from  the  dignity  which  he 
claims  for  himself?  Suppose  three  Persons  to  be  united 
as  co-equal  in  one  Govt-mment,  under  the  title  of  Kir.g^ 
would  it  be  consistent  for  either  of  those  Persons  to  say  / 
am  King^  and  there  is  no  King  besides  Mt  f  If  any  one 
of  the  three  should  say  thus,  would  it  not  be  untrue  in  it- 
self, and  a  contempt  of  the  othtr  Persons  ? 

Supposing  that  you  are  of  the  number  of  Divines  who 
venture  to  tell  what  is  to  be  understood  by  the  word  Pcrsoa 
as  applied  to  the  Godhead,  and  that  by  three  Persons  vou 
mean  '-'-  three  Agents^"*  I  would  here  suggest  some  thoughts 
for  your  consideration. 

Those  who  avow,  that,  by  three  Persons,  they  under- 
stand three  distinct  Ageids^  allow  to  each  of  these  Agents 
self-existence,  independence,  infinite  intellig^rnce,  and  al- 
mighty power,  as  distinct  Persons.  Of  course,  the  three 
Persons  are  three  infinite  Agents.  I  would  now  wish  to 
be  informed,  what  more  wou  d  be  necessary  to  constitute 
three  infinite  Beings.  And  I  would  ask  you  seriously  to 
consider  whether  it  be  possible  for  you  to  form  anv  idea  of 
three  infinite  Agents^  which  does  not  involve  the  precis© 
idea  of  three  infinite  intelligent  Beings^ 
D 


5S  On  the  Unity  of  God, 

I  will  next  bring  into  view  a  text,  in  which  the  Fatiif.h 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  exhibited,  that   voa 
may  see  to  what  the  representation  in  the  text  would  amount 
on  your  hs  pothesis. 

The  text  we  find,  Acts-x.  38.  "  How  God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazarlth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
Power  ;  who  vvent  about  doing  ejood,  and  healing  all  that 
Were  oppressed  of  the  dtvil  :  for  God  was  with  him." 

Here,  Sir,  we  have  the  Trinity  fairly  exhibited.  But 
what  would  he  the  representation,  if  bv  the:  three  be  in- 
tended three  injimte  Agents  ?  Would  not  the  rcjjresenta- 
tion  be  distinctly  this,  that  the  first  jsFJSTTk  AotNT  gave 
the  THIRD  it^FisiT;  Agist  to  enable  th^  slcond  jnfimie 
AglNT  \.o  perform  miracles  ? 


LETTER  IV, 

The  Language  of  good  Writers  in  favor  ofxvhat  they  mean 

to  deny* 
REV.  SIR, 

FOR  the  support  of  the  doctrine,  that  the  self-existent 
Cod  is  but  one  self-existent  Person,  my  reliance  is  placed 
on  the  most  obvious  and  natural  import  of  Scripture  lan- 
guage. It  is,  however,  hoped,  that  it  will  not  be  deemed 
improper  or  unfriendly^  should  I  avail  m\  self  of  the  reason- 
ings, concessions,  and  language,  of  Athanasian  writers, 
for  a  farther  illustration  and  confirmation  of  what  I  esteem 
to  be  the  truth.  The  authors,  whose  writings  I  shall  quote, 
a/e,  in  my  opinion,  deservedly  in  high  estimation,  as 
learned,  discerning,  and  correct  writers.  And  no  author 
will  be  quoted  or  named  with  the  least  desire  to  provoke 
controversy,  or  in  any  respect  to  detract  from  his  reputa- 
tion. 

I  would  now  solicit  your  Attention  to  some  passages  fronf 
Dr.  Hopkins.  In  his  chapter  on  the  Unity  of  God,  ancf 
the  Trinity,  to  prove  the  Unity  of  God,  or  that  there  i» 
but  ONE  God,  he  has  made  use  of  some  arguments,  which^; 
if  I  mistake  not,  are  of  the  same  weight  against  the  doc- 
trine of  a  plurality  of  self-existent  Persons,  that  they  are 
against  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of  seU-existcnt  Gods.— i- 
Thus  he  reasons*... 


On  the  Unify  of  God  27 

<^  There  can  be  but  one  First  Cause  who  exists  necessa- 
niv,  and  without  beginning  ;  for  there' can  be  but  one  in- 
iinlte  Being,  To  suppose  another,  or  a  second,  necessarily 
exclude  s  ^he  first  ;  and  to  suppose  the  first,  necessar-ly 
excludes  the  second,  and  any  other  infinite  Being.  The 
same  is  evident  from  the  consideration  of  the  Divine  per- 
fections. God  is  infinite  Po  er,  infinite  Wisdom.  Bat 
there  cannot  bt-  two  infinite  Wisdoms,  &c.  for  this  impUes 
a  x>ntradicti(>n." 

Yet,  Sir,  your  theorv  supposes  that  there  are  three  dis- 
tinct self-existent  and  independent  Persons,  which,  if  I 
mistake  not,  as  fully  implies  three  "  infinite  Wisdoms,"  &c. 
as  the  supposition  of  three  infinite  Beings, 

The  Doctor  proceeds....'*  Moreover,  if  we  make  the  im- 
possible supposition  that  there  are  two  or  more  infinite  Be- 
ings, they  must  be  perfect'y  alike  in  all  respects,  or  not. 
If  not  perfectly  alike,  and  vvithout  any  difference,  in  any 
resp'-ct,  then  one  or  thf  other  must  be  imperfect  ;  for  ab- 
sohite  infinite  perfection  admits  of  no  variation  or  differ- 
ence :  so  that  if  any  two  Brings  differ  in  any  respect,  they 
cannot  be  both  absolutely  perfect  ;  therefore  cannot  both  be 
God.  But  if  they  are  perfect  y  alike  in  every  respect  and 
every  thing,  then  they  are  perfectly  one  and  the  same  ;  and 
the  supposition  destroys  itself,  being  a  direct  contradic- 
tion." 

If  this  rea^on^ng  he  conclusive,  will  it  not  apply,  in  the 
most  direct  manner,  to  invalidate  the  theorv  of  three  self- 
existent  and  infinite  Persons  f  The  three  Persons  must  be 
perfecth  alike  in  all  respects,  or  not.  If  not  perfectly 
alike,  one  or  the  other  must  be  imperfect,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  God  :  "  But  if  perfectl}'  alike  in  every  respect, 
then  they  are  perfectly  one  and  the  same." 

Those  who  admit  the  Doctor's  reasoning  as  conclusive 
against  three  infinite  Beings,  must,  I  suspect,  to  be  con- 
sistent, reject  the  theory  of  three  infinite,  independent  Per- 
sons. 

Dr.  Emmons,  in  his  Discourse  on  the  Trinity,  has  made 
th's  concession...."  Did  the  Scripture  do  trine  of  the  Trini- 
ty imply  that  three  Persons  are  one  Person,  or  three  Gods 
one  God,  it  wou^d  necessarily  involve  a  contradiction."— 
Yet  this  correct  writer  has  adoped  forms  of  speech  which 
evidently  imply  that  one  Person  is  three  Persons.  Such  are 
the  loUowing...."  God  can,  with  propriety,  say,  I,  Thou, 


2S  On  the  Zfnltt/  of  God* 

and  He,  and  mean  only  Himself.'* — "  Notliing  sliort  of 
three  distiiict  Pt^rsons  in  the  one  undivided  Deity,  can 
Tender  it  proper  for  Him  to  speak  of  HAvisi  lf  in  the  first, 
second,  and  third  Persons,  I,  Thou,  and  He." — "And  so 
there  is  a  certain  somithing  in  the  Divine  Being,  which 
i-endrrs  it  equa  ly  ne.  essary  that  He  should  exist  in  three 
Persons." 

In  these  passives,  H»^.,  Him,  and  Himsrlf,  are  used 
as  pnnoiins  for  God  or  D'-ity.  And  each  of  these  pro-^ 
nouns  strictly  conveys  the  idea  of  one  Person  onlv.  Yet  the 
Dortor  supposed  that  this  one  He,  or    Him,  might  speak 

of  HiMSF.LF  as  THREE   DISTINCT   PeRSONS. 

Dr.  Spring,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  self-existence  of  Christ, 
gives  the  folh^wing  exhortation...."  Let  iis  then  not  deny 
the  self-existence  <»1  God,  nor  the  univtrsalitv  of  His  ex- 
istence, nor  that  His  indivisible  essence  comprises  three 
DISTINCT  Persons." 

By  the  pronoun  His,  God  is,  in  the  first  place,  clearly 
considered  as  but  one  Person  ;  a  et  we  are  fervently  exhort* 
ed  not  to  denv  that  "  His  indivisible  essence  comprises 
three  distinct  Persons." 

Mr.  Jones  stands  on  s'milar  ground.  He  says,  *'  No 
sensible  reason  can  be  given,  whV  God,  should  speak  of 
HiMSFLF  :n  the  plural  number,  unless  He  consists  of  more 
Persons  than  one." 

And  thus  says  Dr.  Hopkins,  "  If  there  be  a  God,  He 
does  exist  without bejj^mning  or  succession  ;  and  this  is  as 
TOuch  above  our  comprehension,  as  that  He  exists  in  three 
Persons." 

To  what.  Sir,  are  we  to  attribute  these  solecisms  ?  Not 
to  the  want  of  mental  ent-rgy  ;  nor  to  the  want  of  piety  ; 
uor  to  the  want  of  scientific  or  grammatical  knowledge. 
But  these  worthv  men  had  been  conversant  with  the  Bible, 
and  from  that  source  had  insensibly  formed  the  habit  of 
usually  speakmg  of  God  as  only  one  Perst^n  j  but  this  be- 
ing contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  they  v^  ished  to  support, 
they  naturally  involved  inconsistency  in  their  forms  of 
speech. 

A  volume,  probably,  might  be  filled  with  such  sole- 
cisms from  Athanasian  writers.  And  indeed.  Sir,  I  very 
much  doubt  whether  you  ever  preached  a  Gospel  sermon, 
or  ever  praved  five  minutes,  without  using  pronouns  in  di- 
rect contradiction  to  your  theory . 


On  the  Unity  of  God,  2& 

LETTER  V. 
The  Mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  unfolded. 
REV.   SIR, 

IN  a  former  Letter,  T  obser\''e(l  to  you,  that  Mr.  Jones 
considered  the  term  God  as  of"  plural  comprehension."  I 
therefore  classed  ihe  noun  God  With  other  nouns  of"  plural 
comprehension,"  such  as.  Council^  Senate^  Triumvirate^ 
&c. — But  since  that  time  I  again  perused  Mr.  Jones'  per- 
formance, and  find  that  I  did  iiot  fully  comprehend  his 
meaning.  As  I  was  readin,^  his  remarks  on  1  Cor.  viii.  6, 
*'  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,"  I  noticed 
this  idea,  "  the  one  God^  the  Father^  is  the  name  of  a  na^ 
tiire  under  which  Christ,  as  God,  is  comprehended."  I 
was  at  first  wholly  at  a  loss  for  his  meaning  ;  it  however 
soon  occurred  to  me,  that  he  considered  the  term  God,  in. 
this  case,  ^s  sl  general  or  generic  term^  comprehending  a 
plurality  of  Persons,  of  one  coTnmon  nature;  as  Man  is 
sometimes  used  for  all  mankind,  I  therefore  pursued  the 
inquiry,  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  his  real  meamng.  When 
I  came  to  the  part  of  his  book,  entitled,  the  "  Conclusion," 
iny  apprehension  was  fully  confirmed. 

In  page  80,  he  says,  "  That  the  Persons  of  God  are 
three  in  number,  precisely  distinguished,  on  some  occa- 
sions, by  the  personal  names  Father,  the  Word  or  Son,  and 
Jloly  Spirit  ;  and  also  by  different  offices.  That  the  same 
terra  is  not  always  peculiar  and  proper  to  the  same  Person  ; 
because  the  words  God^  Lord^  Jehovah^  and  Father^  are 
sometimes  applied  to  one  Person  and  sometimes  to  anoth- 
er ;  while  at  other  times  they  are  not  personal^  but  general 
names  of  the  Divine  nature."*^ 

In  page  81,  he  observes,  "  There  can  be  no  real  Unity 
in  God  but  that  of  his  nature^  essence^  or  substance^  all  of 
which  are  synonymous  terms." 

That  the  three  Persons  are  of  the  same  nature  or  essence^ 
he  considers  as  proved  on  this  ground,  "  Because  they  par- 
take in  common  of  the  name  Jehovah^  virhich  being  inter- 
preted, means  the  Divine  essence  ;  and  what  it  signifies  in 
one,  Person  it  must  also  signify  in  the  others,  as  truly  as 
the  singular  name  Adam^  in  its  appellative  capacity,  ex- 
presses the  common  nature  of  all  mankind*'* 


30  071  the  Unity  of  God, 

If  tbis  be  the  true  Athanasian  theory  of  the  Trhiity,  it 
IS  not  so  mysterious  as  has  been  generally  supposed  ;  and 
I  suspect,  it  will  be  a  much  less  difficult  task  to  explain  it, 
than  it  \v\V  to  reconcile  it  to  the  sacred  Scriptures. 

It  is  obvious,  from  the  passages  quoted,  that  Mr.  Jones 
considers  the  term  God,  as  somt  times  used,  as  a  general 
or  generic  name,  comprising  a  plurality  of  Persons  of  one 
common  n  ture/]\xst  as  we  use  the  term  Man^  as  comprising 
the  whale  species*  And  he  also  supposes,  that  God  is  used 
in  this  sense  as  meaning  the  Divine  nature^  when  it  is  said, 
*'  But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God." 

And  as  he  has  given  us  plainly  to  understand,  that  "  there 
can  be  no  real  Un  tv  in  God  but  that  of  his  nature^  it  is 
manifest  that,  on  this  theory,  the  Unity  of  God  is  the  same 
as  the  unity  of  3Ian.  Mr.  Jones  supposes,  that  the  three 
Persons  in  the  Godhead  are  all  of  one  nature^  that  is,  of  a 
Divine  nature.  So  all  the  individual  Persons  of  the  human 
race  are,  in  the  same  sense,  one^  they  are  of  one  nature^ 
that  is,  human  nature* 

The  whole  mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  according 
to  this  theory,  results  from  the  ambiguous  use  of  the  terms 
GoJ,  Lord,  Jehovah,  &c.  these  terms  being  "  sometimes 
applied  to  one  Person,  and  sometimes  to  another  ;  while 
at  other  times  they  are  -not  personal^  but  general  names  of 
the  Divine  nature  J*"*  When  it  is  said,  there  are  three  Persons 
in  one  God,  the  word  God  is  used  "  as  the  name  of  a  na- 
ture ;"  and  the  import  is  simply  this,  that  there  are  three 
Persons  of  the  same  Divine  nature. 

On  this  theory  of  the  Trinity  in  Unit>%  I  would  suggest 
the  following  inquiries  :.... 

1.  Whether  there  can  be  any  reasonable  objections  to 
the  proposition,  which  affirms  that  there  are  as  man)  self- 
existent  Beings  as  there  are  self-existent  Persons  \  While 
it  has  been  maintained  that  there  are  three  selt-existent 
Persons^  it  has  been  affirmed  that  there  is  but  one  self-ex- 
istent Being.  But  if  the  Unity  is  no  more  than  a  unity  of 
nature^  why  miy  not  each  of  the*  Persons  be  considered  as 
a  distinct  intelligent  Being,  according  to  the  natural  im- 
port of  the  word  Person  ?  When  the  word  Man  is  used 
*'  as  the  name  of  a  nature,"  it  comprises  many  intelligent 
Beings  ;  as  many  as  it  does  of  intelligent  Persons.  Why 
is  it  not  thus  with  regard  to  that  order  of  Persons  in- 
cluded under  the  *'  general  name"  God  ? 


Gn  the  Unity  of  God,  3i 

2.  If  it  be  admitted,  that,  when  It  is  stated  in  the 
Scriptures  that  to  us  there  is  but  onf  God^  that  the  term 
God  ;s  used  '*  as  the  name  of  a  nature'''*  comprising  a  plu- 
rality of  Persons,  what  evidence  can  we  hav^e  that  the  num- 
ber of  Persons  is  limited  to  three  ?  Why  may  not  that 
order  of  Persons,  which  is  denominated  by  the  "  general 
name"  God,  be  as  great  as  the  number  characterized  by 
the  general  name  Man  ? — The  advocates  for  the  theory 
will  doubtless  say,  that  the  Scriptures  mention  but  thres 
Persons  ;  but  do  the  Scriptures  say  that  there  are  no  more 
than  three  Persons  in  the  Godhead  ?  The  Scriptures  teach 
us,  that  there  is  one  God,  and  that  there  is  none  other  but 
He.  And  if  such  declarations  do  not  limit  the  number  of 
self-existent  Persons,  the  limits  are  not  ascertained  in  the 
Bible  by  any  thing,  with  which  I  am  acquainted. 

3.  Will  it  not  foUow,  from  this  hypothesis,  that  in  the. 
sense  that  each  of  three  Persons  is  called  God^  there  are  as 
many  distinct  Gods  as  there  are  distinct  Persons  ? — When 
the  terra  God  is  used  as  "  the  name  of  a  nature,"  or  as  "  a 
general  name  for  the  Divine  nature^"*  it  is  easy  enough  to 
see,  that  in  this  sense  there  may  be  no  more  Cods  than 
one  ;  but  Mr.  Jones  does  not  suppose  that  it  is  always  used 
in  this  sense  ;  he  supposes  the  same  name  is  sometimes 
used  person  lly^  and  applied  "  sometimes  to  one  of  the 
three  Persons,  and  sometimes  to  another."  This  is  pre- 
cisely the  case  with  the  word  Man*  It  is  somet  mes  used 
*'  as  the  name  of  a  nature,"  comprehending  the  whole  spe- 
cies ;  yet  at  other  times  it  is  applied  in  a  personal  manner, 
sometimes  to  one  Person,  and  sometimes  to  another.— 
John  is  a  ma/z,  Jaines  is  a  man^  and  Peter  is  a  man^  &c* 
And  when  it  is  used  in  this  sense,  it  admits  of  the  plural 
number  ;  and  we  may  say  three  men^  or  three  hundred  mem 
yea,  in  this  sense  there  may  be  as  many  Men  as  Persons — 
And  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Father  is  God^  and  Christ 
is  God^  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God^  why  are  there  not  as 
many  Gods  as  Persons  ?  It  is  a  clear  case,  that  if  each  of 
three  Persons  is  one  Man^  those  three  Persons  are  three 
Men,  And  analogy  will  teach  us,  that  if  there  are  three 
Divine  Persons,  each  of  whom  is  one  God,  then  those 
three  Persons  are  three  Gods. 

I  am  well  aware,  that  this  conclusion  is  not  admitted  by 
our  Athanasian  brethren  j  but  if  it  do  not  fairly  result  from 


32  On  the  Unity  oj  God. 

Mr.  Jones'  premises,  I  shall  rejoice  to  see  the  fallacy  of 

the  reasoning  detected. 

On  the  whole,  the  hypothesis  of  MV.  Jones  precludes 
the  necessity  of  any  distinction  between  Person  and  Beings 
or  intelligent  Person  and  intelligent  Being  ;  and  under  the 
generic  or  general  name  God,  it  exhibits  an  order  of  su- 
preme   and     SELF' EXISTENT    INTELLIGENCES,    tO    each    of 

whom  the  name  God  may  be  properly  applied  ;  the  num- 
her  of  this  order  of  divine  iNTELLiGENCEShe  supposes 
to  be  but  THRF.E  ;  this,  however,  is  only  supposition  ;  there 
is  no  certainty  in  the  case.  The  Dimne  nature  is  doubtless 
as  extensive  as  human  nature  ;  and  if  it  include  more  than 
one  self-txistent  Person,  it  may  be  impossible  for  us  to  see 
•why  it  may  not  comprise  as  many  Persons  as  human  nature* 
And  as  Mr.  Jones  supposed  that  not  only  the  word  God, 
but  also  the  word  Lord,  was  used  both  as  an  "  appellative''* 
or  general  name,  and  also  in  a  personal  manner  as  applica- 
ble to  each  of  the  Divine  Persons,  the  h\pothesis  seems  to 
open  the  way  lor  the  re-admission  oi  Lords  manij  and  Gods 
many. 

In  speaking  of  the  three  Persons  in  the  Trinity^  Dr.  Em- 
mons says,  >**•  There  is  a  certain  something  in  the  Divine 
nature  which  lays  a  proper  foundation  for  these  personal 
distinctions.  But  what  that  something  is,  can  neither  be 
described  nor  conceived.  Here  lies  the  whole  mystery  of 
the  Trinity." 

Had  the  good  Doctor  understanding^  and  believinglt/ 
read  Mr.  Jones  on  the  su!)ject,  he  would  doubtless  have 
been  able  to  describe  that  '^  certain  somethtnc^^^  as  well  as 
Mr.  Jones  has  done.  For  the  "  somethtsg^^  appears  from 
Mr.  Jones  to  be  simply  this,  the  Divine  nature^  like  human 
nature^  may  comprise  a  plurality  of  Persons. 

Thus  1  have  endeavored  to  unfold  the  Atbanasian  mys- 
tery of  the  Trinity  ;  the  business  of  reconciling  it  with  the 
Bible,  I  shall  not  undertake. 


PART  II. 


^N   THE   REAL   DIVINITT  AND    GLORT  OF 
CHRIS  T. 


LETTER  I. 

Jesus  Christ  truly  the  Sou  of  God, 
'     REV  SIR, 

THE  first  proposition  which  I  proposed  to  establish  was 
this,  That  the  Supreme  Being,  or  self-existent  God,  is 
bnly  one  Person,  And  it  is  believed,  that,  in  proof  of  this 
proposition,  something  has  already  been  done. 

My  second  proposition  is. 

That  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. — If  the 
second  proposition  should  be  supported,  additional  evidence 
will  appear  in  favor  of  the  first.  For  according  to  your 
theory,  Jesus  Christ  is  one  of  the  three  self-existent  Per- 
sons, and  is  personally  the  self-existent  God.  But  should 
it  appear  that  he  is  personally  and  truly  the  Son  of  God,  it 
will  also  appear  that  he  is  neither  the  self-existent  God,  nor 
a  self-existent  Person.  For,  to  a  discerning  and  unpreju- 
diced mind,  it  must  be  obvious,  that  it  is  a  natural  impos- 
sibility that  the  same  Person  should  be  truly  the  sclf-exist- 
cnt  G'^d  and  truly  the  Son  of  the  self-existent  God*  And 
so  far  as  the  natural  import  of  language  is  to  be  regarded, 
the  terms  a  self-existent  Son  imply  a  real  and  palpable  con- 
tradiction. The  term  self  existent  is  perfectly  opposed  to 
the  term  Son^  and  the  term  Son  is  perfectly  opposed  to  self 
existence.  If  there  be  any  term  in  our  language  which  nat- 
urally implies  derived  existence^  the  term  Son  is  of  this  im- 
port. And  to  affirm  that  a  Person  is  a  derived  self  existent 
Being  implies  no  greater  contradiction  than  to  affirm  tha-  a 
Person  is  a  self  existent  Son,  And  to  aflSrm  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  at  the  same 
E 


34  On  the  real  Dtvtmty  and  Glory  of  Christ 

time  truly  the  Son  of  God,  is  percisely  the  same  contradie-' 
tion  that  it  would  be  to  affirm  that  the  Prince  of  Woles  is 
truly  Kinpr  George  the  Third^  and  also  triily  the  Son  of  King 
George  the  Third. 

These  things  I  have  stated  on  the  ground  of  the  natural 
meaning  of  terms.  That  the  things  I  have  stated  are  true, 
according  to  the  natural  import  of  language,  will  not,  it  is 
believed,  be  denied  by  any  person  of  good  discernment  and 
candor. 

The  proposition,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of 
God,  is  so  obvious  in  its  natural  import,  and  so  plainly 
scriptural,  that  many  may  suppose  it  requires  neither  ex- 
p'anation  nor  proof.  Yet  such  is  the  state  of  things  in  the 
Christian  world,  that  both  explanation  and  proof  are  neces- 
sary. For  although  there  is,  perhaps,  no  one  point  in  which 
Christians  are  more  universally  agreed  l\\2iX\  in  calling  Christ 
the  Son  of  God,  there  is  scarcelv  any  thing  about  which 
they  are  more  divided  than  that  of  the  intended  import  of 
those  terms.  But  amidst  the  variety  of  opinions  which 
have  been  formed  on  the  subject,  the  natural  import  of  the 
words  has  been  pretty  uniformly  rejected  ;  and  almost 
«Ver\  other  possible  meaning  has  been  affixed  to  them,  in 
preference  to  that  which  the  terms  naturally  excite.  In- 
deed, it  seems  to  have  been  generally  taken  for  granted, 
that  it  is  impossible  -with  God  to  have  a  Son.  Athanasians 
appear  to  have  taken  tnis  lor  granted  ;  and  find  ng  that  di- 
vine titles,  divine  attributes,  divine  works,  and  divine  hon- 
ors, are  ascribed  to  him  in  the  Scriptures,  they  have  set  it 
down  as  an  unquestionable  truth,  that  Christ  is  so  far  from 
being  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  natural  sense  of  the  terms^ 
that  he  is  the  very  self-existent  God ;  yea,  that  very  God 
of  whom  the  Scriptures  declare  that  he  is  the  Son.  Other 
denominations,  taking  for  granted  the  same  principle,  have 
proTK)Mnced  the  Saviour  to  be  "x  mere  creature^  more  or  ess 
dignified  and  endued.  And  thus,  on  the  one  hand  or  the 
other,  almost  every  possible  grade  of  intelligent  existence 
and  dignity  has  been  allowed  him,  excepting  that  which  is 
naturally  imported  by  his  title  the  Son  of  God. 

Two  ideas  are  naturally  suggested  by  the  title  the  Son 
of  God,  viz.  Divine  Origin  and  Divine  Dignity. 

By  D  vine  Origin,  1  do  not  mean  that  the  Son  of  Crod  is 
a  created  intelligent  Being  ;  but  a  Being  who  properly  de- 
rived  his  existence  and  his  nature  from  God.     It  has  not^ 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glorif  ofChrtsC  $S 

perhaps,  been  common,  to  make  any  distinction  between 
derived  existence  and  created  existence  ;  but  in  the  present 
Case  the  distinction  appears  vtiy  important.  Adam  was  a 
created  being  ,  Seth  derivedYX^  ex'stence  from  the  created 
iiature  of  Adam  ;  and  therefore  it  is  said  "  Adam  begat  a 
ijon  in  his  own  likeness."  And  as  Seth  derived  his  exist- 
ence from   the  created  nature  of  Adam,   so,  it  is  believed, 

thr^tthe  ONLT  BKCOTTTN  OF  THE  FaTHER  DERIVED  HIS  ex- 
istence from  the  self-existent  nature  of  God.  In  tliis  sense 
onlv  do  I  mean  to  prove  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  derived 
intelligence. 

The  hypothesis,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God, 
bv  properly  deriving  his  existence  and  natuic  from  God, 
will  probably,  by  manv,  be  pronounced  a  very  great  absur-; 
ditv.  And  as,  in  my  view,  very  much  is  depending  on  this 
pomt,  vou  v/ill  suffer  me  to  be  particular  in  the  examina^ 
tion. — That  the  terms  the  Son  of  God,  as  applic-d  to  Christ, 
do  most  naturallv  denote  that  his  existence  and  nature  were 
derived  from  God,  will,  it  is  believed,  be  granted  by  all  ju- 
dicious and  impartial  inquirers.  And  it  does  not  discover 
the  greatest  reverence  for  the  Scriptures,  nt)r  the  greatest 
sense  of  our  own  fal'ibiHty,  hastily  to  reject,  as  absurd,  the 
natural  import  of  inspired  language.  If  there  be  any 
ground  on  which  the  h\  pothesis  may  be  pronounced  absurd^ 
it  must  be  found  either  in  the  -works  «¥^  the  ivord  of  God.  cn^ 

But  what  do  we  find  in  the  ivorks  of  God,  by  which  it 
may  appear,  that  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  God  has  a  Son 
who  has  truly  derived  his  existence  and  nature  from  the 
Father  ?  In  examining  the  works  of  God,  we  find  reason 
to  suppose  that  God  has  given  existence  to  various  tribes 
of  beings,  with  natures  distinct  from  his  own.  And  is  it 
not  quite  as  difficult  to  conceive,  that  God  should  give  ex- 
istence to  beings  by  proper  creation^  with  nature  distinct 
from  his  own,  as  that  he  should  give  existence  to  a  Son  truly 
deriving  his  nature  from  the  Father  \ 

We  also  find,  that  God  has  endued  the  various  tribes  of 
creatures  with  a  power  oi procreation^  by  which  they  pro- 
duce offspring  in  their  own  likeness.  Why  is  it  not  as 
possible  that  God  should  possess  the  power  of  producing  a 
Son  in  his  own  likeness,  or  with  his  own  nature,  as  that  he 
should  be  able  to  endue  his  creatures  with  such  a  power  ? 
May  it  not,  then,  be  presumed,  that  no  shadow  of  evidence 
<;>m  be  produced  from  the  works  of  God,  to  iavalidats  the 


3S  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofCh  irht* 

hvpothesis  that  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  possesses  di* 
vine  nature  by  derived  existence  ? 

What  then  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Wt  may,  in  reply  to 
this  question,  notice  several  things. 

1.  Dr.  Hopkins  has  said,  "  The  Redeemer  is  the  Son  of 
God  in  a  peculiar  and  appropriated  sense,  and  by  which  he 
is  distinguished  from  evry  other  person  in  the  universe." 
—The  Doctor  adds,  "  He  is  mentioned  as  the  Son  of  God 
more  than  an  hundred  times  in  the  New  Testament  ;  and 
the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son,  is  mentioned  above  two 
hundred  and  twenty  times." 

The  correctness  of  these  statements  is  not  doubted  ;  and 
on  the  ground  of  thrm  I  mav  sav,  that,  according  to  the 
natural  import  of  words,  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, more  than  three  hundn^d  and  t  ■  entv  timrs  mention- 
ed as  a  DFRIVFD  iNTFLLiGENcr,  an  intelligence  who  has 
property  der  ved  his  existeryce  and  nature  from  God.  For 
in  contradistinction  to  angels  and  men,  and  to  all  w\\o  may 
be  cilled  Sons  of  God  bv  crration^  or  adoption^  Jesus  Christ 
is  definttzvely  called  th  e  Son  of  God, 

2.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  several  epithets  are  used  as 
with  explicit  design  to  prec'ude  all  mistake,  and  to  give  us 
unequivocal  evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  most  strict  sense  of  the  term.  He  is  emphatically 
called  God's  *' OWN  Son."  And  to  denote  that  God  has  no 
other  Son  in  the  sense  in  which  Christ  is  his  Son,  he  is  call- 
ed God's  ONLY  Son.  And  more  fully  to  express  the  idea 
that  he,  and  he  only,  properly  derived  his  existence  and  na- 
t  rr  from  God,  he  is  called  *^'the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God,"  "the  only  begotten  of  the  Fathkr." 

I  ^ouldhere  ask,  whether  \th(t  possible  to  find  terms 
which  would  more  clearly  and  more  emphatically  express 
the  verv  thing  which  I  undertook  to  prove?  If  no  further 
evidence  could  be  produced  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis,  it 
would  ct^rtainly  require  something  very  substantial  and 
positive  to  invalidate  what  has  been  already  exhibited. 
But  additional  evidence  is  yet  to  come.  What  has  been 
produced,  is  from  the  general  and  current  language  of  the 
New  Testament. — We  may  add, 

3.  It  appears  to  have  been  one  particular  design  of  the 
miracles  which  were  wrought  by  Christ,  to  prove  that  he 
■was  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that,  as  the  Son,  was  sent  of  the 
Father  iato  the  world. 


On  the  real  Divimty  and  Glory  ofChrhu  S7. 

Christ  said  to  the  Jews,  ''  Ye  sent  unto  John,  and  he 
hare  witness  of  the  truth.  But  I  have  greater  witness  than 
that  of  John:  for  the  W(9ri*  which  the  Father  hath  giv<;n 
me  to  finish,  the  same  works  which  I  do,  bear  witness  of 
me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me."  John  v.  33....o6. 

The  account  that  the  Jews  sent  unto  John,  and  the  tes-  - 
timony  he  gave,  we  have  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of 
the  same  Gospel.  The  testimony  is  this,  •■'  But  he  that_ 
sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said  unto  me. 
Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and  re- 
maining on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the 
Holv  Ghost.  And  I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this  is  the 
SoN^God." 

This  was  the  truth  to  which  John  testified  ;  but  Christ 
stated,  that  the  works  which  he  did  were  of  greater  weight 
than  the  testimony  of  John.  And  it  is  observable,  that,  as 
it  was  one  design  of  his  miracles  to  prove  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  so  this  conviction  was  produced  in  the  m>nds 
of  many  upon  seeing  the  miracles  which  he  performed. 
And  though  many  of  the  Jews  rejected  this  testimony,  yet 
reluctant  devils  were  constrained  to  acknowledge  his  digni- 
ty and  power  as  the  Soi^  of  God. 

4.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Faithful  and  True  Witness,and  he 
repeatedly  affirmed,  "  I  am  the  So  v  of  God  :"  and  he  also 
^abundantly  affi:  med  that  God  was  his  Father. 

I  am  not  insensible,  that,  ob  th  s  ground,  some  have  . 
supposed  that  Christ  meant  to  affirm  his  self-existence,  in- 
dependence, and  co-eternity  with  the  Father.  But  surely 
I  can  think  of  no  words  which  would  have  been  less  calcu- 
lated to  impress  such  an  idea  on  an  unprejudiced  mind. 
And  had  it  been  his  design  to  affirm  his  self-existence,  and 
at  the  same  time  to  mislead  the  minds  of  his  hearers,  I  know 
jiot  of  any  language  which  would  have  been  more  adapted 
to  such  a  purpose.  Would  any  person  of  common  dis- 
cernment and  common  honesty  ever  think  of  asserting  that 
he  is  General  Washington,  or  that  he  personally  existed 
as  earlij  as  Genera  Washington,  by  saying,  I  am  the  Sow 
of  General  Washington,  and  General  Washington  is  my 
Father  ? — But  if  Christ  meant  to  assert  that  he  derived 
his  existence  and  his  nature  from  God  as  a  Son  from  a 
Father,  what  language  could  have  been  more  to  his  pur- 
pose than  that  which  he  adopted  I 

5.  The  awful  display^  of  Divine  majesty  and  power 
which  were  concomitants  of  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  pro- 


38  On  the  real  Dhmkt/  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

diiced  a  conviction  in  the  minds  of  the  Centurion  and  others 
that  Jesus  was  the  Son  ot  God.  "  Now  when  the  C^-n* 
turion,  and  they  that  were  vv  th  him,  Kvatch-ng  Jesus,  saw 
the  earth  quake,  and  those  things  that  were  done,  they 
frared  greatlv,  saying,  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God." 
And  according  to  the  opinion  of  Saint  Paul,  he  was  "■  de» 
clared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  according  to  the 
spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."— 
Kom.  i.  4. 

6.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  was  a  prin- 
cipal article  of  primitive  Christian  faith,  and  a  principal 
doctrine  of  apostolic  preachi  g, 

Christ  questioned  his  disciples  thus,  "  Whom  do  men 
say  that  1,  the  Son  of  m  >n^  am  ?  They  said,  Some  say 
thou  art  John  the  Baptist,  some  Elias,  and  others  Jere- 
mias,  or  one  of  the  prophets.  He  saith  unto  them,  But 
whom  say  ye  that  I  am  I  And  Simon  Peter  answered  and 
said.  Thou  art  the  Christ,  tht  Son  of  the  living  God." 

Nathaniel,  on  becoming  acquainted  with  Christ,  said 
tmto  him,  *•'•  Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God." 

When  Christ  questioned  Martha  respecting  her  faith  in 
him,  she  replied,  "  I  believe  that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God." 

After  the  ascension,  when  the  Eunuch  manifested  a  de- 
sire to  be  baptized,  Philip  answered,  "  If  thou  believest 
with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."  The  Eunuch  then  ex- 
hibited his  confession  of  faith,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God,"  And  on  the  ground  of  this  professioii 
he  was  baptized. 

Saint  Paul  havmg  been  converted  and  commissioned  for 
the  Gospel  ministry,  "  straightway  he  preached  Christ  in 
the  Synagogues,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God." 

And  the  same  doctrine  he  abundantly  inculcated  in  his 
Epistles. 

Dr.  Hopkins  has  noticed,  that  the  Apostle  John  *'  men- 
tioned Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  fifty  times — and  the  Fa- 
ther of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son,  more  than  one  hundred  and 
thirty  times,"  in  his  Gospel  and  Epistles.  And  this  same 
Apostle  has  spoken  of  faith  in  Christ,  that  he  is  the  Son 
of  God,  as  though  it  were  indeed  of  the  highest  importance. 
*^  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 
God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God.     He  that  believeth 


0n  the  real  Dhhiity  and  Glory  of  Christ  SSI 

on  the  Son  oi  God,  hath  the  witness  in  himself.  Whoso- 
ever denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the  Father.  Who 
is  he  that  overcometh  the  world,  but  he  that  belitveth  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Sns  of  God  I 

Here  I  would  take  the  liberty  to  propose  a  few  questions. 
Is  believing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  a  mere  man  or  a  mere  crea- 
ture^ bv-lieving  that  he  is  the  Son  of  God,  God's  ow>i  Sov^ 
the  ONLY  B iGOTT h N  oi  the  Father?  Again,  Is  believing 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  personally  the  self-ixistfwt  God^  be- 
lieving that  he  is  truly  the  aS*^  .v  of  God  ?  Does  it  not  ap- 
pear, that  be  ieving  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God, 
was  the  orthodox  faith  in  the  first  age  of  Christianity  ?  But 
is  this  the  faith  of  those  who  call  themselves  the  orthodox 
at  the  present  day  ? 

To  believe  that  Christ  \s  personally  the  self-existent  Gcd^ 
and  to  believe  that  Christ  is  trulif  the  Son  of  G(  d^  are,  in 
Diy  view,  ver\  distinct  things  ;  and  I  cannot  but  be  amaz- 
ed that  ideas  so  perfectly  distinct  should  ever  have  been 
admitted  as  one  and  the  same. 

7.  The  self-existent  and  supreme  Majesty,  by  an 
audible  voice  from  Heaven,  did  repeatedly  confirm  the 
truth  which  I  have  aimed  to  support. 

'••  And  Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water  :  and  lo,  the  Heavens  were  opened 
Vmto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God  descending  like  a 
dove,  and  lighting  upon  him  :  and  lo  !  a  voice  from  Heaven^ 
saying.  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased." 

Again,  at  the  time  of  the  transfiguration,  "  Behold,  a 
br  ght  cloud  overshadowed  them  ;  and,  behold,  a  voice 
out  of  the  cloud,  which  said.  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  io 
whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;  hear  ye  him." 

Is  it  possible.  Sir,  that  any  man  can  attend  for  a  moment 
to  the  natural  import  of  these  words  from  Heaven,  and 
then  believe  that  God  meant  to  be  understood  as  saying. 
This  Person,  who  has  been  baptized,  and  transfigured,  is 
the  self-existent  God,  co-eternal  with  myself,  and  the  self^ 
same  Being  t 

8.  The  avowed  design  of  St.  John,  in  writing  the  hisf 
tory  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  proof  that  in  his  view  Jesus  was 
truly  the  Son  of  God.  At  the  close  of  the  20th  chapter^ 
he  says,  **  And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in  the 
presence  of  his  discijples,  which  are  not  written  in  t\m 


4lO  On  the  real  Divmlty  and  Glory  of  Chris  f. 

book.  But  these  are  written  that  ye  might  believe  that 
Jesiis  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believing, 
ye  might  have  life  through  his  name.'' 

It  has  often  been  supposed^  and  urged^  that  John  wrote 
his  Gospel  at  the  request  of  the  Bishops  of  Asia,  in  sup- 
port of  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  in  opposition  to  the  her- 
esy of  Cerinthus,  and  the  Ebionites,  who  held,  that  Christ 
was  a  mere  man.  This  may  be  verv  true  ;  but  it  does  not 
hence  follow,  that  John  wrote  in  suppt/rt  oi  your  views  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  nor  that  your  sentiments  accord 
with  his.  And  since  John  has  himself  told  us  his  object 
in  writing,  we  have  no  occasion  to  resoit  to  the  supposi- 
tion of  others  to  determine  the  point.  And  he  tells  us,  ia 
the  most  unequivocal  manner,  that  his  object  in  writmg 
was,  that  his  readers  might  believe  that  Je^sus  is  the  Christ, 
the  So\  of  God.  And  if  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  terms,  he  vi^as  truly  a  divine 
PrKsoN,  in  opposition  to  the  opinions  of  Ebion  and  Cerin- 
thus. 

You  w'll  probably  urge,  that  in  the  verv  first  verse  of 
his  Gospel,  John  says,  "  The  Word  was  God."  This  is 
true  ;  and  it  is  also  true,  that  in  the  same  verse,  and  in 
th'-^  next,  he  savs,  "  The  Word  was  with  God."  The 
God  whnm  the  Word  was  xvith^  v/as  doubt'ess  one  God; 
and  unless  e  are  to  suppose  that  John  meant  to  affirm  a 
plura'ity  of  self-existent  Gods,  he  did  not  mean  to  affirm 
that  the  Word  was  God  in  a  sense  which  implied  personal 
seit-existtnce.  Besides,  the  title,  the  Word,  or  the  Word 
of  God,  probably  denotes  that  the  Son  was  the  Mkdium 
of  Divine  manifestation  ;  and  hence  we  may  easily  inter, 
that  it  was  on  the  ground  of  a  c^NSTiruriD  char^cti-R  that 
th;'  Son  is  called  God.  John  proceeds  to  sa^•,  that  all 
things  were  made  by  him  ;  and  Paul  tells  us  how^  that  God 
"  created  all  things  by  Jesus  CuRibT,^^ 

In  some  future  Letters,  I  shall  more  particularly  show  in 
what  sense  Christ  is  ca'led  God.  But  I  may  here  observe, 
that  the  general  current  of  John's  Gospel  corresponds  with 
what  he  sa\  s  was  his  object  in  writing,  viz.  "  That  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  j  and 
that  believing,  ye  might  have   life  through  his  name,'' 

In  my  next  Letter,  you  may  expect  still  further  evidence 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. 


^n  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrish  41 

LETTER  II. 

'Additional  Evidence  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God, 
REV.  SIR, 

AS  introducton'  to  the  arguments  whicti  I  am  about  to 
large,  I  would  suggest  to  your  mind  the  following  suppo- 
sitions. 

1.  Suppose  that  God,  in  giving  the  ten  commandments 
on  tables  of  stone,  instead  of  writing  the  word  sabbath-day 
ih  the  fourth  commandment,  had  left  a  blank  ;  and  in  giv- 
ing the  fifth,  he  left  a  blank  instead  of  writing  the  terms 
father  and  mother, 

2.  Suppose  he  wrote  a  second  time,  and  filled  up  those 
blanks  with  characters  or  words  which  had  never  before 
been  seen  or  heard  of  by  men. 

3.  Suppose  he  vs^rote  a  third  time,  and  instead  of  leav- 
ing bla»ks  for  those  words,  or  filling  them  with  unknown 
characters  or  terms,  he,  for  sabbath-day^  wrote  birth-day ; 
and  instead  oi father  and  mother^  wrote  son  and  daughter  : 
suppose  also,  that  these  words  had  never  been  undergtood 
by  men  to  mean  any  thing  different  from  their  common  ac- 
ceptation at  the  present  day* 

Permit  me  now  to  ask,  whether  either  of  these  modes  of 
writing  those  commands  could  be  considered  as  a  revela- 
tion of  the  Divine  Will  \  And  would  not  the  mode  of 
writing  birth-day  for  sabbath-day^  and  son  and  daughter 
for  father  and  mother^  be  as  likely  to  mislead  the  minds  of 
men,  as  writing  in  unknown  characters^  or  even  as  leaving* 
klank  spaces  to  be  filled  up  by  conjecture  ? 

But  wfiat,  you  may  ask,  is  the  object  of  these  extraordi- 
nary statements  ?  My  object.  Sir,  is  this,  to  evince,  that 
in  his  communications  to  us,  God  must  make  use  of  lan- 
guage in  a  sense  which  agrees  with  some  analogy,  or  his 
communications  can  be  of  no  use  to  mankind,  any  more 
than  unknown  characters^  or  blanks  to  be  filled  by  conjee* 
ture. 

In  a  connexion  as  deeply  interesting  as  that  of  giving  the 
law,  God  has  made  use  of  the  terms  the  Son  oj  God^  my 
SoN^  GoD*s  OWN  Son,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God*  He 
has  represented  his  love  to  us  as  being  exceedingly  ^eat, 

F 


i2  On  the  teal  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ 

on  the  following  ground,  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he 
gave  his  only  bkgotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him,  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  "  He 
thctt  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  dtlivered  him  up  for  us 
all/' 

Surh,  you  know,  is  the  common  representation  in  the 
New  Testament,  And  being  well  arquainttd  with  the 
natural  import  of  the  terms  an  own  vSon,  an  only  bkgot- 
Tkn  Son  ;  and  having  an  idea  of  the  love  of  a  lather  to  an 
own  and  only  son  ;  the  scriptural  representations  of  the 
ipve  of  God  towards  us  become  deeply  interesting  and  af- 
fecting. 

But  the  Athanasian  theory  represents  the  Son  of  God  a$ 
personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  the  very  saml  Beings 
of  whom  he  is  abundantlv  declared  to  be  the  Son.  And 
on  this  ground,  the  term  Son  is  used  in  a  st-nse  foreign  to 
every  analogy  with  which  the  htiman  mind  is  acquainted; 
as  foreign  as  it  woiild  be  to  use  birth-diy  for  sabbath-day^ 
or  son  and  duughttfr  (or  ft thtr  ainl  mofhrr.  On  this  ground, 
the  representations  of  Clod's  love,  and  the  scheme  of  salva- 
tion, are  involved  in  unintt  I'lgiSle  metaphor  ;  and  we  need 
an  inspired  Daniel  to  interpret  the  import  of  the  term  Son, 
as  much  as  Belshazzar  did  to  interpret  the  enigmatical 
hand-writing  on  the  wall.  And  until  this  interpretation  be 
given,  we  have  no  definite  ground  on  which  to  estimate  the 
love  of  God  ill  the  atonement  made  for  the  sins  of  the 
world. 

What  has  been  now  exhibited,  is  viewed  as  a  very 
weighty  argument  against  your  theory,  and  in  favor  of  the 
hypothesis  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God. — But 
there  is  another  argument  which,  if  possible,  is  still  more 
weighty,  to  which  we  may  now  attend. 

You  cannot  be  insensible,  that  it  is  plainlv  and  abundant- 
ly represented  in  the  Scriptures,  that  the  Son  of  God  did 
really  and  ptrsonally  suffer  and  die  for  us.  And  that  on 
this  ground,  both  the  love  of  God  and  the  love  of  his  Soir 
arc  represented  as  having  been  manifested  in  a  very  extra- 
ordinary manner.  And  if  the  Son  of  God  be  truly  the  Sna 
of  God,  a  derived  intelligence,  these  representations  may 
be  strictly  and  affectingly  true.  For  on  this  hypothesis, 
the  Son  of  God  may  be  the  same  intelligent  Being  as  the 
aoui  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  who  suffered  on  the  cross* 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  ChrtsU  -4(3 

But  vour  theory  will  not,  I  suspect,  he  found  to  admit, 
or  support,  anv  thing  more  than  the  shadow  of  the  siiff'erin^ 
and  dentil  of  the  ^^-^v  of  Gro, 

Writers  and  preacheis  on  vour  side  of  the  question,  do, 
indeed,  often  speak  of  the  ab  \sement^  the  suffrrinprs^  and 
deaths  of  the  Sow  of  God,  as  though  they  believed  these 
things  to  he  affecting  realities.  linf,  after  all,  what  is  the 
amount  of  these  representations,  upon  your  hypothesis  ? 
You  do  not  conceive  th.it  the  Son  of  (iod  became  united 
to  flesh  and  hhx.d  as  the  soul  of  Jrsus  Christ.  So  far  from 
this,  you  supp<»se  the  Sonf  of  CioD  was  personally  the  self- 
cxistentGod  ,  and  instead  of  becom  ng  the  soul  of  a  human 
bodv^  you  suppose  he  became  m\  slerionsly  united  to  a 
proper  Man,  who,  as  distinct  from  the  Son  of  God,  had  at 
true  body  and  reasonable  soul.  And  I  think.  Sir,  it  will 
be  found,  that  on  thi«i  Mm  xour  theory  lays  the  iniquities 
of  us  all  ; — ^thar  this  J/.7/,  and  not  the  Son  of  God,  en- 
du]e<l  the  stripes  by  v\ hi(  h  we  have  healing.  For  while 
you  maintain  that  the  Son  was  personally  Uie  only  liv^- 
ing  and  truf  God,  )  ou  very  consistently  affirm  that  "  he 
did  not  sufft-r  in  the  least  in  H  s  Divine  nature,  but 
altogether  in  his  human  nature.*'  And  what  is  this  but  af- 
firming that  he  d  d  not  suffer  at  a'l  as  the  Son  of  God,  but 
on'y  the  Man  jfesus  suffered,  to  whom  the  Son  w^^Siimited? 
As,  on  the  Athanasian  hxpotbesis,  the  Alan  C4«-ist  Jesus 
and  the  human  nature  arc  the  same,  io  the  Son  or  self-eX" 
istent  God  and  the  Divine  nature  of  Christ  are  the  same» 
You  suppose  the  Son  as  incapable  of  suffering  as  the  Fa- 
ther, and  he  did  not  in  reality  personally  suffer  on  the 
cross  any  more  than  the  Father  did  ;  nor  any  more  than 
either  of  them  suffered  while  Cranmer  was  burning  at  the 
stake.  How  then  does  it  appear,  that"  God  spared  not 
HIS  OWN  Son"  I 

You  will  probably  plead,  that  the  Man  Jesus  was  united 
to  the  Person  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  Person  suffered 
in  his  human  nature.  But,  Sir,  as  you  predicate  person- 
ality on  the  Son  or  Divine  nature,  and  do  not  allow  per- 
sonality to  the  human  nature^  it  will,  I  suspect,  be  difficult 
for  you  to  prove  that  a72z/  Person  suffered  on  the  cross: 
for  the  sufferings  fell  simply  on  a  nature  to  which  you  do 
not  allow  personality.  '  As,  in  your  view,  the  Son  was  the 
self-existent  God,  and  could  not  suffer  in  his  Divine  nature^ 
UE  Qbnld  not  si/Jlr  in  any^  nature.     The  man  was  only  an 


44  On  the  real  Dtvinity  and  Glory  ofChrisu 

appendage  to  his  Person,  mysteriously  connected  ;  and  yet 
so  far  was  the  union  from  being  very  intimate  or  essential, 
that  the  appendage  or  the  Mm  mightj  suffer  the  severest 
agonies,  and  the  Soi^  or  Ti<  al  Person  be  at  the  same  time 
J    in  a  state  of  infinite  felicity. 

Abraham's  offering  his  son  Isaac,  has  long  been  consid- 
ered as  typical  of  the  conduct  of  God  in  giving  his  Son  to 
die  for  us.  Suppose  we  should  add  to  the  scriptural  ac- 
count the  following  ideas — That  Abraham  knew  before- 
hand that  his  son  was  incapable  of  suffering,  and  that  all 
the  sufferings  would  fall  on  another  man,  to  whom  his  son 
was  mysteriously  united  ;  and  that  Isaac  also  understood 
the  matter  in  the  same  light  when  he  consented  to  be  bound 
and  laid  upon  the  altar.  Would  not  this  additional  account, 
if  believed,  depreciate,  in  our  estimation,  the  conduct  of 
Abraham,  and  Isaac  at  the  rate  of  ninety-nine  per  cent.  ? 
This  illustration  may  serve  to  show  how  much  your 
hypothesis,  when  understood,  tends  to  lower  down  our 
ideas  of  the  greatness  of  the  love  of  God  in  giving  his  Son 
to  die  for  us ;  and  also  the  love  and  submission  of  the  Son 
in  consentmg  to  make  his  life  an  offering  for  our  sin. — I 
w^ould,  however,  by  no  means  intimate,  that  you,  and 
others,  view  the  love  of  God  in  this  depreciated  light. 
For  I  think  it  probable  that  it  is  with  you,  as  I  am  sensi- 
ble it  was  with  myself-r— the  plain  ^presentations  of  Scrip- 
ture, by  the  help  of  analogy,  superseded  the  force  of 
theory. 

It  has  been,  and  I  think  justly,  supposed,  that  the  dignity 
of  the  Son  of  God  gave  value  to  the  sufferings  of  the  cross. 
And  if  we  consider  the  Son  of  God  to  be  what  his  title 
imports,  a  derived  Intelligence  of  Divine  origin  and  dig- 
nity, the  one  by  whom  (jod  created  the  world,  by  whooi 
or  in  whom  he  appeared  to  the  ancient  Patriarchs,  by 
•whom  he  conducted  the  children  of  Israel  from  Eg^  pt 
to  Canaan  ;  if  we  consider  this  se  f-samc  Intelligence 
a^  «»•  personally  and  really  suffering  the  death  of  the  cross, 
we  may  perceive  something,  in  view  of  v^  hich  we  may 
well  exclaim,  "  Behold  what  manner  of  love  !" 

But  if  the  sufferings  of  the  cross  did  not  really  fall  on 
that  very  Son,  who  had  sustained  pre  existent  glory  in  the 
*'  FORM  OF  God,"  but  on  a  man  who  had  existed  less  than 
forty  )'ears,  who  had  a  ted  in  public  character  not  more 
than  four  or  five  ;  how  small  the  degree  of  condescension  on 
the  part  of  the  sufferer^  how  small  the  display  of  the  love  of 


J\ 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  cf  Christ,  45 

God,  and  ot  what  diminished  value  are  the  sufferings  of  the 
cross  !  In  the  Assembly's  Catechism  we  are  taught,  that 
".Christ's  humiliation  consisted  in  his  being  born,  and  that 
in  a  low  condition,  being  made  under  the  law  ;  undergoing 
the  miseries  of  this  life,  the  wrath  of  GoJ,  and  the  cursed 
death  of  the  cross  ;  in  being  buried,  and  continuing  undet 
the  power  of  death  for  a  time." 

Yet  this  same  Catechism  teaches  us  to  be'iex^e,  that  Je- 
sus Christ  was  personally  co-eternal  with  the  Father,  and 
the  self-existent  God.  I  will  tht*n  ask,  whether  there  be 
one  particular,  of  what  is  said  respecting  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,  which  csin  possibly  be  true?  Was  the  self-existent 
God  ever  born  ?  Was  he  ever  in  a  low  condition  t  Was 
he  ever  made  under  the  law  f  Did  he  ever  suffer  the 
wrath  of  God,  or  the  cursed  death  of  che  cross  t  Was 
God  ever  buried  ? — If  the  self-existent  God  has  not  passed 
through  such  scenes,  then  the  Son  of  God  has  not,  accord- 
ing to  your  doctrine  respecting  the  Son.  Therefore,  ac- 
cording to  your  theor}',  all  the  abasement^  v.  hich  can  be 
supported,  faLs  on  the  Man  to  which  the  Son  was  united  : 
And  this  Man  you  suppose  had  no  existence  until  he  was 
conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  virgin  Marv  ;  of  course,  he 
had  no  glory  to  leave,  or  lay  aside,  when  he  came  into  the 
world.  As  he  never  had  been  rkh^  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  become  poor  for  our  sakes.  He  had  no  opportuni- 
ty to  say,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  will,  O  God  ;"  and  so  far 
as  his  humiliation  consisted  in  ^'  being  born,  and  that  in  a 
low  condition,"  there  was  nothing  voluntary  in  it ;  and  it 
could  be  no  evidence  of  any  love  or  condescension  in 
him. 

To  make  out  your  theory  of  the  humiliation  and  abase- 
ment of  the  Son  of  God,  you  have  to  take  into  view  two 
distinct  intelligent  Beings  ;  one  of  which  you  affirm  to  be 
the  self-existent  God,  and  the  other  a  proper  Man.  This 
God,  or  Son  of  God,  you  find  had  been  in  a  state  of  pre- 
existent  dignity  and  glory  ;  and  he,  as  you  suppose,  was 
united  mysteriously  to  a  Man  j  tliis  Man  was  born  in  low 
circumstances,  endured  the  m  series  of  this  life,  and  suf- 
fered death  on  the  cross  ;  and  by  virtue  of  his  union  to 
the  Son  of  God,  iie  was  enabled  to  bear  a  vastly  greater 
w^eight  of  suffering  than  he  could  otherwise  have  endured. 

But,  Sir,  is  this  all  that  is  intended  by  God's  sparing 
^OT  ms  OWN  Son  l     Is  this  the  way  in  which  the  So*v  of 


45  On  the  real  Dhinhy  and  Glory  ofChrtsU 

God  BARE  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree  ?  What, 
Sir,  was  the  real  condition  of  the  Son  of  God,the  sclf-exist- 
cnt  God,  from  the  birth  of  the  Man  Jfsiis  till  this  Man 
rose  again  from  the  dead  ?  Accord  ng  to  your  theory,  the 
Son  of  God,  during  tlie  whole  of  that  |x*riod,  was  in  a  state 
of  infinite  glory  and  felicity  ;  and  as  incapable  of  suffering 
the  agonies  of  death,  as  the  Father.  How  then  can  it  be 
true,  that  "  Though  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by 
ffui  things  which  he  sufferfd  ?*'  As  it  respects  the  real  char- 
acter of  the  suffering  Savior,  what  is  yoar  theory  bet- 
ter than  Sociuianism  enveloped  in  mystery  ? 


lette;r  III. 

M?  Ahsicrdity  in  the  Hypothesis  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Soi^ 

of  God. 

REV.  SIR, 

WHAT  has  been  exhibited  in  the  preceding  Letters, 
it  is  hoped,  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  impartial  minds  that 
the  Scriptures  afford  abundant  evidence  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  truly  the  Son  of  God.  But  a  contrary  belief  has  been 
so  long  and  so  generally  prevalent,  th^t  it  may  be  necessary 
to  say  something  farther  on  the  subject,  with  a  view  to 
show  that  the  natural  i?nport  of  the  terms  the  Son  of  God, 
or  God's  own  Son,   implies  no  contradiction  or  absurdity. 

That  God  is  a  self-existent  Being,  is  acknowledged  by 
all  Christians  ;  and  I  shall  freely  admit,  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble  with  God  to  beget  or  produce  a  self-existent  Son. 
But  what  have  we  to  do  with  the  7node  of  God's  existence, 
in  determining  whether  it  be  possible  with  him  to  produce 
a  Son  ?  What  have  we  to  do  with  the  mode  of  Adam's  ex- 
istence, in  determining  whether  Beth  could  be  his  Sen  t 
Respecting  Adam,  it  is  said,  "The  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nos- 
trils the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  And 
probably  Adam  was  a  man  in  size  or  stature  at  his  first  ex- 
istence. Could  not  Seth  be  the  son  of  Adam,  unless  the 
mode  of  his  haying  existence  was  the  same  with  Adam's  I 


On  the  real  Dlvlniiy  and  Glory  of  Christ.  45? 

Wben  Adam  was  in  existence,  he  had  a  nature  by  which 
he  was  distinguished  from  God  and  from  Angels.  Such  a 
nature  Seth  derived  from  Adam.  Self-existence  may  b^ 
esst  ntial  to  the  Divine  nature  in  God,  and  proper  creation 
might  be  essentia!  to  the  human  nature  in  Adam.  And  as 
human  nature  in  Seih  liiight  be  derived  from  the  created  na- 
ture of  Ad:»m,  why  mav  it  not  be  true  that  Divine  nature  m 
the  Son  was  derived  trf>m  the  aelfrexiatent  nature  of  God  ? 

We  often  speak  oi' Divine  nature^  angelic  nature^2Lnd  hu- 
-^an  nature  ;  bat  w  hat  do  we  know  of  either,  excepting 
certain  prop*  rtics,  attributes,  or  qualities  ?  Are  we  not 
unable  to  tell  \\hat  is  the  radical  difference  between  an  An- 
gel and  a  human  soul  ?  Yet  we  believe  there  is  some  rad- 
ical distinction.  So  wc  may  b^  unable  to  ascertain  the 
radical  distinction  between  the  Divi?ie  nature^  and  human 
nature^  exclusive  of  the  different  modes  of  existence. 
Yet,  aside  from  those  attributes  which  simply  ¥ej««t  xhcr^J/f 
inc)des  of  existence,  there  may  be  some  radical  difference 
between  those  natures.  If  we  suppose  this  diversity  of 
natures  to  result  Irom  the  diversity  of  attributes  or  qualities 
united,  yet  there  may  be  some  property,  attribute,  or  qual- 
ity, by  which  one  nature  is  distinguished  from  another^ 
and  the  distinguishing  property  of  nature  may  be  wholly  un- 
known to  us. 

Are  we  not.  Sir,  too  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  God,  to 
pronounce  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  nature  which  may  be 
properly  derived  in  the  existence  of  an  own  Son  ?  It  may 
fiot  be  necessary  that  every  attribute  of  Deity  should  be 
communicable  or  derivable  in  order  that  he  may  have  an 
OWN  Son.  Among  the  children  of  men,  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry to  the  existence  or  the  idea  of  a  son^  that  he  should  pos- 
sess all  the  attributes,  properties,  or  qualities  of  his  father. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  that  he  should  possess  no  other  attri- 
butes but  such  as  were  possessed  by  his  father.  Among 
the  seventy  sons  of  Gideon,  perhaps,  there  were  no  two 
that  perfectly  resembled  each  other  in  their  attributes,  prop- 
erties, or  qualities  ;  and  probably  no  one  who  was  the  per" 
feet  likeness  of  his  father.  So  Jesus  Christ  may  have  tru- 
ly derived  his  existence  and  nature  from  God,  and  yet  not 
possess  every  attribute  of  the  Father. 

Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh  ; 
yet  we  believe  his  body  was  not  produced  by  ordinary 
gc.neration.j  but  as  Mary  was  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  as 


4^  On  the  real  Dimnity  and  Glory  ofCIirlsL 

the  body  of  Christ  was  derived  from  her,  Christ  is  called 
David's  Son.  Had  he  not  properly  derij^ed  anv  properties 
from  David,  he  could  not  with  proprietv  be  called  the  Son 
of  David.  And  if  his  spirit  or  soul  had  not  been  as  prop- 
erly derived  from  God,  as  his  body  was  from  David,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  whv  he  should  be  called  the  Sun  of  God,  or 
God's  OWN  and  only  S  >n. 

It  has  been  said  by  a  respectable  writer,  that  "  it  is  total- 
ly incon  eivable  that  a  derived,  dependent  nature,  should 
really  possess  any  of  those  Divine  perfections  which  es- 
sentially belong  to  an  underived,  independent,  self-existent 
Bei:g." 

H  »d  the  word  exclusively  been  used  instead  of  the  word 
"  essentiallif^'^  the  observation  would  have  been  unexcep- 
tionable. SelJ-existence  and  independence  belong  to  God,  . 
not  only  '^  essentially ^"^  but  exchisivfly.  But  knoivledge^ 
power ^  and  holiness^  are  essential  attributes  in  God,  and  yet 
knowledge,  power,  and  holiness,  may  be  communicated, 
not  only  to  a  derived  but  to  a  created  intelligence.  God 
may,  indeed,  possess  these  attr  butes  in  an  unlimited  ex- 
tent, while  in  other  beings  they  may  be  limittd  ;  but  thes& 
attributes  may  be  of  the  saine  nature  in  men  that  they  are 
in  God. 

That  God  does  communicate  knowledge,  power,  and  ho- 
liness, will,  it  is  believed,  be  granted  by  most  Christians. 
Nor  may  we  set  any  limits  to  the  drgree  in  which  they 
may  be  communicated,  unless  we  may  limit  the  Divine 
Power  of  communication. 

However,  I  have  no  occasion  to  maintain  that  Christ  did, 
with  his  existence  as  a  Son,  derive  any  attribute  of  Deity 
in  the  extent  in  which  it  is  possessed  bv  God.  Had  he 
been  personally  self-svfficient  and  all-siifficient^  he  would 
have  had  no  occasion  for  God's  giving  him  the  Spirit  with* 
out  measure.  He  might,  w  ith  his  existence,  derive  so  much 
of  the  Divine  nature  as  to  be  truly  the  Son  of  God  ;  and 
yet  he  might  be  the  Almighty,  and  the  Searcher  oF 
HEARTS,  by  the  indwelling  ot  the  Father,  or  the  Jullness  of 
the  Godhead. 

When  men  are  renewed  in  the  temper  of  their  minds, 
they  are  said  to  be  ^'  born  of  God,"  to  have  the  image  of 
God  on  their  hearts  ;  and  on  this  ground  they  are  denomi- 
nated Sons  of  God.  For  that  which  is  begotten,  or  produ- 
ced, in  them,  is  truly  of  a  Divine  nature.  It  is  that  holiness 


t)n  the  real  t)hmity  and  Glory  of  Christ*  49 

t>]f  heart  which  is  the  glory  of  the  Divine  character.  There 
is  nothing  more  essential,  or  more  excel'ent,  in  God,  than 
holiness  ;  this  we  see  may  be  derived  as  the  attribute  of  a 
dependent  being.  And  this  holiness  is  precisely  of  the  , 
same  nature  in  men  that  it  is  in  God.  Its  nature  is  not 
changed  by  being  derived  or  communicated.  As  that 
which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  so  that  which  is  born  of 
the  spirit  is  spirit — it  is  of  the  same  holy  nature  as  the 
spirit  by  which  it  is  produced. 

Will  it  be  denied,  that  holiness  is  the  excellence  of  all  ex- 
cellences in  the  Divne  existence  and  character?  And  if 
that  which  is  essential  to  the  Divine  existence  may  be  com- 
municated or  produced  as  the  attribute  of  a  dependent 
agent,  by  what  principles  of  revelation,  or  philosophy,  can 
it  be  affirmed,  that  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  produce 
an  intelhgent  existence  from  his  own  nature  ?  If  God, 
from  his  own  nature,  may  produce  his  moral  image^  why 
may  he  not  produce  his  natural  image  f  And  why  may 
not  Jesus  Christ  be  as  truly  the  "image  of  the  invisible 
God,"  as  Setb  was  the  likeness  of  Adam  \ 

Holiness  -tt  as  self -existent  in  God,  as  any  attribute  of 
the  Divine  nature  ;  yet  holiness  may  be  produced  as  the 
attribute  of  a  dependent  agent.  And  if  one  attribute,  which 
is  self-existent  in  Deity,  may  be  produced  or  derived^  as 
the  attribute  of  a  dependent  agent,  without  any  change  in 
its  nature,  what  evidence  can  we  have  that  other  attributes, 
properties,  or  qualities,  which  are  self-existent  in  God, 
may  not  be  properly  derived  ?  Yea,  by  what  evidence  can 
it  be  made  to  appear,  that  all  the  radical  and  essential  prin- 
ciples or  properties  of  intelligent  existence,  may  not  have 
been  properly  derived  from  the  Divine  nature  in  the  per- 
son of  God's  own  Son  ? 

From  the  circumstance,  that  holiness  is  of  the  same  na- 
ture in  angels  and  men  that  it  is  in  God,  we  may  easily 
discern  that  the  term  self  existence  ought  not  to  be  used  as 
expressive  of  the  nature  of  Divine  attributes,  but  only  to 
express  the  mode  of  their  existence.  And  the  same  may 
be  said  of  the  terms  eternity^  independence^  and  infinity* 
In  God,  holiness  is  self  existent^  eternal^  independent^  and 
infinite.  But  considered  as  the  attribute  of  a  dependent, 
created  agent,  an  angel  or  a  man,  neither  of  these  epithets 
can  be  applied.  Yet  holiness  may  be  of  the  same  nature 
in  men,  in  angels,  and  in  God*  Why  may  not  the  same 
G 


so  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

be  true  respecting  other  attributes  or  qualities  of  the  Di- 
vine nature  ? 

Some  additional  light  may  possibly  be  obtained,  by  at- 
tending  to  the  idea  of  supernaturil  or  superhuman  powers, 
with  which  God,  at  some  times,  endued  human  beings.— 
Sampson,  at  some  seasons,  was  weak  like  another  man  ; 
but  when  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,  he  was 
able  to  perform  prodigies.  This  supernatural  strength,  it 
appears,  was  immediately  derived  from  God,  Yet  while 
Sampson  possessed  this  strength,  it  was  truly  his  strength  ; 
and  he  was  no  more  dependent  on  God  for  the  strength  by 
which  he^performed  the  wonderful  things  recorded  of  him, 
than  I  am  for  the  strength  by  which  I  move  my  pen. 

The  prophets  were  endued  with  supernatural  foreknowl- 
edge, by  which  they  were  enabled  to  unfold  the  vol-ume  of 
futurity,  and  predict  events  not  only  hundreds  but  thousands 
of  years  before  the  time  in  which  the  predictions  were  to 
be  fulfilled. 

By  a  baptism  of  the  same  Spirit,  the  apostles  were  in- 
stantaneously endued,  and  enabled  to  speak  in  foreign  lan- 
guages which  they  had  never  studied. 

These  supernatural  powers  were  but  occasfo/za/ properties 
or  attributes  of  the  several  persons  who  possessed  them. 
But  while  they  were  possessed^  they  were  personal  proper- 
ties or  attributes.  Those  persons  were  truly  endued  zuitk 
power  from  on  high.  The  prophets  foresaw  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  foreknowledge  ;  and  the  apostles  s^mke  as  the 
Spirit  gave  them  utterance*  This  Spirit  was  the  Spirit  of 
God  ;  and  when  it  was  given  in  an  extraordinary  manner^ 
men  were  enabled  to  do  extraordinary  things.  When  men 
have  been  thus  endued,  they  have  possessed  extraordinaiy 
portions  of  Divine  sufficiency  ;  and  these  portions  of  suf- 
ficiency, it  appears,  they  possessed  by  a  co^yzmz/nfcYzfiow  of 
Divine  fulness.  Nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  God  might 
not,  if  he  pleased,  endue  every  individual  of  the  human 
race  with  the  streftgth  of  Sampson,  the  foreknowledge  of 
Daniel,  and  th^  gift  of  speaking  all  hiiman  languages  :  and 
these,  if  he  pleased,  niight  be, continued  as  permanent  at- 
tributes of  character. 

From  what  has  been  exhibited,  it  is  pretty  evident,  that 
created  intelligences  may,  by  the  pleasure  o^  God,  possess 
holiness,  knowledge,  and  power,  which  are  truly  of  a  Di- 
irine  nature.     May  we  not  properly  say,  that  Sampson 


On  the  real  Dhmity  and  Glory  ofChrisU  Si 

possessed  an  extraordinary  measure  of  Divine  power,  and 
that  the  prophets  and  apostles  possessed  an  extraordinary 
measure  of  Divine  knowledge  ;  and  that  all  holy  beings  do 
partake  of  that  attribute  which  is  the  glory  of  the  Divine 
nature  ? 

If  the  attributes  of  holiness,  knowledge,  and  power,  may 
be  properly  communicated  from  God  to  dependent  agents, 
and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  become  personal  properties  or 
attributes  of  these  agents,  what  properties  of  intelligent  ex-^ 
istence  may  not  be  properly  derwed  irom  Deity,  as  a  stream 
from  2i  fountain^  or  as  a  Son  from  a  Father  f 

The  communication  of  these  atti  ibutes,  from  a  self-exist- 
ent to  a  derived  agent,  seems  to  imply  something  distinct 
from  these  attributes  as  the  Being  who  is  the  recipient  of 
these  communications.  But  what  that  is  virhich  constitutes 
Being,  distinct  from  such  properties  or  attributes,  is  per- 
haps beyond  the  reach  of  mortal  discernment.  I  have  not, 
however,  made  this  remark  with  a  view  to  deny  the  exist- 
ence of  Being,  as  distinct  from  all  we  know  of  attributes 
or  properties.  The  language  we  use,  and  the  language  of 
the  Bible,  naturally  imply  a  recipient  or  receiver  of  Divine 
communications  ;  and  that  Being  does  imply  something 
more  than  all  we  know  of  properties,  attributes,  or  quali- 
ties. If  any  thing  be  communicated  from  one  agent  to 
another,  there  must  be  an  agent  or  capacity  to  receive  such 
communications. 

But  if,  from  his  own  self-existent  nature,  or  fulness, 
God  may  communicate  the  attributes  of  knowledge,  power, 
and  holiness,  to  created  intelligences,  so  that  they  shall 
possess,  in  measure,  these  attributes  as  derived  excellences^ 
what  evidence  can  be  found  to  invalidate  the  hypothesis 
that  the  existence  of  the  Son  of  God  was  properly  derived 
from  the  Divine  nature  I 

Angels  and  saints  are  called  sons  of  God  ;  yet  Christ  is 
God's  OWN  and  only  Son,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Fa« 
ther.  The  primary  and  radical  distinction  may  possibly 
be  this  :  angels  and  saints,  as  created  intelligences,  may 
derive  h-om  the  Divine  nature  some  attributes  or  properties.; 
while  God's  own  Son  may  derive  not  only  some  attributes, 
but  his  very  Being  or  Existence^  from  the  Divine  nature. 

Some  may  imagine,  that  I  have  labored  hard,  in  this  in- 
vestigation, to  support  a  self-invented  theory.  But  this  is 
not  the  case  \  I  have  been  laboring  tj  support  the  primitive 


S2  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

Christian faithy  that  Jesus  Christ  is  trvly  the  Son  of 
GoD^  God's  OWN  and  only  Son;  and  tp  rescue  the  plain, 
abundant,  and  emphatical  language  of  Scripture,  from  the 
strong  prepossessions  of  my  fellow  Christians. 

Dr.  Spring  stys,  "  The  Scriptures  were  inspired,  to  in- 
struct common  readers,  by  using  words  according  to  their 
common  acceptation,  and  not  to  confound  them  by  an  abuse 
of  language."* 

Had  the  principle  advanced  in  this  excellent  remark  been 
understood  and  duly  regarded,  I  should  have  had  no  oc- 
casion for  a  labored  discussion  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  truly  the  Son  of  God.  But  the  plain  meaning  of  the  terms 
has  been  so  involved  in  the  labyrinth  of  controversy^  and 
the  mists  oi prepossession^  that  it  has  required  some  forti- 
tude to  assert^  and  some  labor  to  prove^  that  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  God,  of  Christ,  and  the  Apostles,  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  correct  expression  of  the  truth.  Yea,  I 
have  been  laboring  to  prove,  that  these  Witnesses  used 
*'  words  according  to  their  common  acceptation,"  and  that 
they  did  not  mean  *'to  confound  us  by  an  abuse  oj  language. '''* 

Had  the  plain  and  natural  import  of  language  been  here- 
tpfore  duly  regarded,  an  attempt  to  prove  that  Christ  is 
truly  the  Son  of  God,  would  have  been  as  needless,  as  an 
attempt  to  prove  th^t  Isaac  was  truly  the  son  of  Abraham, 

POSTSCRIPT. 

THERE  are  some  who  predicate  the  Sonship  of  Christ 
simpl}'  on  the  ground  stated  by  the  Angel  to  Mary,  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  shall  overshadow  thee  :  therefore  that  holy  thing 
which  shall  be  born  of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 

That  this  text  contains  a  reason  why  Christ,  in  his  in^ 
carnate  state,  should  be  called  the  Son  of  God,  I  will  not 
denv  ;  and  if  I  were  in  the  habit  of  believing  that  the  soul 
or  spirit  of  Christ  had  no  pre-existence,  I  should  readily 
admit  this  as  the  only  ground  on  which  he  is  called  the 
Son  of  God.  But  even  on  such  an  '  hypothes  s,  nothing 
could  be  made  to  appear  against  the  supposition  that  his 
existence  was  truly  derived  from  God,  in  a  sense  by  which 
he  is  distinguished  from  every  other  Intelligent  being. 
But  I  as  fully  believe  that  the  Son  of  God,  as  an  intelligent 


*  Sermon  on  the  Self-existence  of  Christ, 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  53 

Being,  existed  before  the  world,  as  I  believe  that  he  now 
exists. 

Some  will  probably  object,  that  it  is  unaccountable  and 
inconceivable  how  God  should  have  a  Son.  But  you,  Sir, 
I  trust,will  not  make  the  incomprehensibleness  of  the  mode 
of  Divine  operation  an  objection  to  the  theory.  For  this 
hypothesis  is  far  more  consistent  with  all  we  do  know^  than 
the  supposition  of  three  infinite  Persons  in  one  intelligent 
Being.  The  hypothesis  which  I  have  proposed  contra- 
dicts nothing  which  \fizknotv  of  Person,  of  Being,  or  of 
God.  It  is  doubtless  repugnant  to  what  some  men  have 
thought ;  but  it  may  be  presumed  that  it  is  not  repugnantto 
what  is  known  by  any  man.  Nor  does  the  hypothesis  im- 
ply anv  thing  more  inconceivable,  unaccountable,  or  incom- 
prehensible, than  what  is  implied  in  the  existence  of  ever^ 
other  intelligent  being  in  the  universe.  How  God  exists 
without  any  cause,  and  how  he  could  give  existence  to  an- 
gels, or  to  men,  are  as  perfectly  inconce  vable  to  us,  as  hoiv 
he  could  give  existence  to  an  own  Son.  And  I  may  ask 
the  objector,  whether  it  be  more  inconceivable  to  us  how 
God  could  have  an  own  Son,  than  it  is  to  conceive  how  or 
•why  such  a  thing  should  be  impossible  with  Him  I  If  we 
are  to  draw  our  conclusions  from  all  we  know  of  God  by 
his  works  and  by  his  word^  we  have  surely  as  much  ground 
to  say  that  such  a  thing  is  possible^  as  we  have  to  say  it  is 
impossible* 


LETTER  IV. 

The  Divine  Dignity  of  the  Son  of  God. 

REV.  SIR, 

WHATEVER  may  be  the  apprehensions  of  others, 
^respecting  my  attempt  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  truly 
the  Son  of  God,  you  may  be  assured.  Sir,  that  it  has  been 
no  part  of  my  object  to  degrade  his  character.  If  it  did  not 
seem  a  "  light  thing"  to  iJavid  to  be  2i^*- King'* s  son-in-law ^^ 
it  surely  ought  not  to  be  viewed  by  us  degrading  to  Christ, 
to  consider  him  as  God*s  own  and  oniy  Son. — And  I  shall 
now  attempt  to  show, 

Tha^  the  Son  ofQod  is  truly  a  Person  of  Divine  Dignity^ 


S4>  On  the  real  Dwimtij  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

No  principle,  perhaps,  has  been  more  universallv  ad- 
mitted, than  this,  that  a  son  derives  dignity  from  illustrious 
parentage.  ' 

The  Jews,  to  whom  Christ  made  his  appearance  in  the 
flesh,  were  well  accfuainted  with  this  principle  ;  and  though 
many  generations  had  intervened,  they  still  gloried  in  the 
idea  that  they  were  the  descendants  of  the  illustrious  Pa- 
triarch Abraham. 

There  is,  perhaps,  no  nation,  whether  barbarous,  civil- 
ized, or  christianized,  in  which  the  principle  is  not  admit- 
ted. The  sons  of  Emperors,  Kings,  and  Noblemen,  are 
considered  as  deriving  dignity  from  their  respective  fa- 
thers. And  the  derived  dignity  of  each  is  according  to  the 
acknowledged  dignity  of  his  father. — But  raore  especially 
is  the^  Jirst-born  or  only  son  of  a  King,  or  Emperor,  con- 
sidered as  deriving  royal  or  imperial  dignity  by  royal  or 
imperial  descent.  It  is  indeed  true,  that  a  son  of  the  most 
renowned  and  worthy  King  may,  by  vicious  or  disobedient 
conduct,  forfeit  his  derived  d'gnity,  and  subject  himself  to 
the  displeasure  of  his  father,  and  to  general  infamy ;  but 
this  forms  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  principle  of  deriv- 
ed dignity.  And  on  the  same  principle  that  a  worthy  son 
of  a  worthy  King  derives  royal  dignity,  the  Son  of  God 
derives  Divine  dignity.  And  on  the  same  principle  that 
the  most  worth)^  son  of  the  most  renowned  King  derives 
higher  dignity  than  the  son  of  a  common  peasant^  the  de- 
rived dignity  of  the  Son  of  God  will  appear  to  be  infinite. 
For  his  Father  is  infinitely  illustrious.  This  must  certain- 
ly be  the  case,  unless  the  Son  has  done  something  by  which 
he  has  forfeited  his  claim.  But  that  he  has  not,  we  have 
the  highest  ground  of  assurance  ;  twice  by  an  audible  voice 
from  Heaven,  God  has  proclaimed  his  perfect  satisfaction 
in  his  Son,  by  saying,  ''  This  is  my  beloved  Son^  in  -whom 
I  am  well  pleased,'''^  And  we  have  still  farther  assurance  of 
the  same  thing,  by  the  high  and  important  offices  with 
which  God  has  invested  his  beloved  Soh\ 

It  has  sometimes  been  the  case  in  earthly  governments, 
that  a  King's  son,  who  was  well  beloved  of  the  father,  has 
been  admitted,  during  the  father's  life,  to  a  joint  partici- 
pation in  the  government,  and  invested  by  the  father  with 
kingly  authority.  Such  was  the  case  with  Solomon,  the 
son  of  David.  Solomon  derived  his  authority  from  David, 
and  by  the  pleasure  of  David  he  was  crowned  King  -,  but 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrisU  ■  55 

Solomon  was  as  truly  the  King  of  Israel  as  though  he  had 
possessed  the  same  authority  by  self-existence. 

If  it  be  true,  tViat  God  has  an  own  and  only  Son,  ia 
whom  he  is  well  pleased,  it  would  be  natural  to  expect  that 
he  would  delight  to  honor  him  in  the  highest  possible  man- 
ner. 

Moreover,  any  wise  and  benevolent  King,  being  about 
to  invest  his  son  with  kingly  authority,  would,  were  it  in 
his  power,  endue  his  son  with  every  qualification  or  attri- 
bute which  Would  be  requisite  to  the  most  perfect  and  hon- 
orable execution  of  the  office  which  he  was  to  sustain.  And 
such  we  may  suppose  would  be  the  pleasure  of  God  respect- 
ing his  Son.  Nor  may  we  suppose  any  insufficiency  in 
God,  in  respect  to  communicating  of  his  own  infinite  ful- 
ness to  the  Son,  in  whom  he  is  ever  well  pleased. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  sacred  Oracles,  to  see  whether 
these  reasonable  expectations  are  justified  by  revealed 
facts. 

In  respect  to  communicated  fulness  or  sufficiency,  we 
have  the  follow  ng  declarations...."  He  whom  God  hath 
sent,  speaketh  the  words  of  God  ;  for  God  givcth  not  the 
Spirit  by  measure  unto  him."     John  iii.  34. 

"  For  it  pleased  the  Father,  that  in  him  all  fulness  should 
dwell."     Col.  i.  19. 

"  In  him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily." 
Col.  ii.  9. 

Such  then  has  been  the  pleasure  of  God  in  respect  to  en- 
duing his  Son  with  Divine  sufficiency.  If  by  a  portion  or 
measure  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  the  apostles  were  instantane- 
ously endued  to  speak  a  number  of  languages  which  they 
had  never  learned,  what  may  not  the  Son  of  God  be  able 
to  do,  who  has  the  Spirit  without  measure  ?  And  if  it  hath 
pleased  the  Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell  in  his 
Son,  we  can  with  no  more  propriety  set  bounds  to  the  suf- 
ficiency of  Christ,  than  to  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead. 

Thus  we  find  one  of  the  reasonable  expectations  justifi- 
ed by  plain  and  positive  declarations  of  Scripture. 

We  have  next  to  show,  that  God  has  manifested  a  dis- 
position to  honor  his  Son  in  t4^e  highest  possible  manner. 

As  the  first  token  ot  this  disposition  in  God,  we  may  no- 
tice that  God  CONSTITUTED  his  Son  the  Creator  of  the 
world.  In  this  great  and  astonishing  work,  a  surprizing 
display  was  made  of  the  power,  the  wisdom,  and  the  good- 


56  'On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

ness  of  God.  But  in  this  work,  it  appears  that  the  Sow 
was  honored  as  the  constituted  Creator  ;  for  we  are 
expressl\  told,  that  God  "  created  gll  things  by  Jesus 
Christ."     Eph.  iii.  9. 

The  work  of  creation  is  sometimes  expressly  attributed 
to  God,  and  sometimes  as  expressly  attributed  to  the 
Word  or  Son  of  God  :  and  from  these  representations 
many  have  argued  that  the  Son  and  God  are  the  same  Be- 
ing. But  it  is  thought  that  this  conclusion  has  been  too 
hastily  adopted.  V or  li  God  created  all  things  by  Jvsus 
Ci  RiST^  the  work  of  creation  may,  with  great  propriety, 
be  attributed  to  either  the  Father  or  the  Son  ;  and  yet  they 
may  be  two  distinct  intelligent  Beings. — God  spake  by  the 
Prophets  ;  and  what  the  Prophets  said,  may,  vn  ith  pro- 
priety, be  attributed  to  either  GoD  or  the  Prophets  :  but 
it  will  not  hence  follow  that  God  and  the  Prophets  are  but 
one  and  the  same  intelligent  Being.  As  the  Prophets  were 
CONSTITUTED  MEDIUMS  and  Aglnts  in  foretelling  events, 
so  Christ  was  the  constituted  Creator  of  all  things  in 
Heaven  and  earth. 

In  the  next  place,  we  mav  observe,  that  the  Son  was 
gonstituted  the  Angel  of  God's  Presence,  or  the  Me- 
dium by  which  God  appeared  or  manifested  himself  to  the 
ancient  Patriarchs. 

We  have  many  accounts  of  God's  appeartJig  to  Abra- 
ham, to  Isaac,  to  Jacob,  and  to  Moses  ;  and  seeing  these 
Tisible  manifestations,  is  several  times  represented  as  see- 
ing God.  Yet  the  matter  is  so  explained  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, as  to  give  us  reason  to  suppose,  that  all  these  visJ- 
ble  manifestations  of  God's  Presence  were  made  in  the 
Person  of  the  Son  of  God,  For  it  is  said,  "  No  man  hath 
seen  God  at  any  time  ;  the  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  iii 
the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  declared  h'lm^''*  or  mani- 
fested him.  The  Son,  in  those  appearances,  was  usually 
denominated  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  And  when  this 
Angel  vvas  employed  by  God,  as  the  Conductor  and  Guar- 
dian of  the  people  of  Israel  in  their  journey  fn^m  Egypt  to 
Canaan,  God  gave  this  solemn  caution  to  the  people,  •■'  Be- 
ware of  him,  and  obey  his  Voice  ;  provoke  him  not :  for 
he  will  not  pardon  your  transgression  ;  for  my  Name  is  in 
him."  By  Name  here  may  be  understood,  dignity^  Jul- 
7iess^  and  authority.  And  as  God  thus  dwelt  in  the  Son, 
and  manifested  his  dignity,  fulness,  and  authority,  througli 


On  the  real  Dkinity  and  Glory  of  Christ*  57 

tire  Son,  Isaiah  denbninates  the  Son  the  Angel  of  God's 
Presence — "  And  the  Angel  of  his  Presence  saved  them." 
Accordingly  those  visible  manifestations  are  sometimes 
represented  as  the  appearance  of  God,  and  sometimes  as 
the  appearance  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  or  the  Angel 
of  God:  And  what  was  spoken  on  those  occasions  is 
sometimes  represented  as  spoken  by  God,  and  sometimes 
as  spoken  by  the  Angel ;  just  as  the  work  of  creation  is 
sometimes  attributed  to  God,  and  sometimes  to  the  Son  of 
God.  And  as  God  manifested  himself  thus  in  the  Person 
of  his  Son,  so  the  Patriarchs  considered  God  as  present  in 
those  visible  manifestations. 

And  as  all  the  covenant  transactions  with  Abraham,Isaac, 
and  Jacob,  were  performed  on  God's  part  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  Son  as  the  Angel  of  his  Presence^  so  the  Pro- 
phet Malachi  stiles  him  the  Messenger  or  Angel  of  the 
covenant. 

There  is,  however,  another  ground  on  which  Christ 
may  be  called  the  Messenger  of  the  covenant.  He  was 
eminently  the  Seed  promised  in  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  were  to  be 
blessed.  And  he  was  the  Messiah  ;  and  as  the  Messiah 
was  included  in  the  promises  of  the  covenant,  so  Christ 
may  be  called  the  Messenger  or  Angel  of  the  covenant,  as 
he  was  sent  by  God  in  the  flesh  according  to  covenant. 

I  am  not,  Sir,  alone,  nor  an  original,  in  considering  the 
'  Son  of  God  as  the  Medium  of  Divine  manifestations. — 
Athanasian  writers  have  done  the  same.  But  is  it  not  a 
manifest  impropriety  to  consider  a  Being  as  the  Medium  of 
•  his  own  manifestations  ?  If  Chrst  be  truly  the  Son  of  God, 
he  may  be  truly  the  Medium  through  which  God  manifests 
himself;  and  may  thus  be  in  the  '•'•form  of  God^  But  if 
he  be  persona  ly  the  self-existent  God,  he  can,  with  no  pro- 
priety, be  considered  as  the  Medium  of  Divine  manifes- 
tations. 

Although  God  had,  in  various  ways,  manifested  his  love 
to  his  Son  prior  to  the  incarnation,  yet  such  was  his  love  to 
mankind,  and  so  important  was  our  salvation  in  the  view 
of  God,  that  he  was  d  sposed  to  give  his  only  begot i  en 
Son  as  a  sacrifice  for  our  redemption.  And  although  the 
Son  of  God  had  been  highly  honored  and  exalted  by  his 
Father,  and  had  often  appeared  in  the  '•''form  of  God^^  to 
transact  aifairs  of  high  importance,  yet  such  was  the  benev- 
H 


S8  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

olence  and  condescension  of  this  Son,  that  he  freely  coil' 
curred  in  the  Father's  proposal  for  the  redemption  of  man, 
and  said,  "  Lo,  I  come  to  do  thy  wiB,  O  God."  But  to 
accomplish  this  great  purpose,  the  Son  must  lay  aside  the 
form  ofGod^  and  take  on  himself  the  y^^rw  of  a  strvarit-^ 
he  must  become  incarnate,  be  united  to  a  human  body, 
aiid  be  the  "  Son  of  David  according  to  the  fieM''  Thus 
he  who  was  rich,  for  our  sakes  became  poor,  that  we, 
through  his  poverty,  might  be  made  rich.  And  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became  obe- 
dient unto  death. 

But  such  voluntary  and  deep  abasement  in  the  Son,  was 
not  to  pass  unnoticed  nor  unrewarded  by  the  Father.  And 
we  have  the  most  plain  and  unequivocal  testimony,  that 
God  did  honor  his  Son  by  constituting  him  a  Princf  and 
a  Savior,  the  Lord  of  all,  and  the  Supreme  Judge  of 
the  quick  and  the  dead. 

That  it  is  as  the  fruit  of  the  Father's  love  to  the  Son,  and 
on  the  ground  of  a  constituted  character^  that  Christ  bears 
those  and  other  Diyine  names  and  titles,  1  shall  endeavor 
clearly  to  pr-^ve. 

John  the  Baptist,  in  his  testimony  concerning  the  Son, 
not  only  said,  •■'  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto 
him  ;"  but  added,  "  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath 
GIVEN  all  things  into  his  handy.,.,^oh\\  iii.  35. 

When  the  Son  was  about  to  leave  his  disciples  and  as- 
cend into  heaven,  he  proclaimed  in  their  ears,  "  All  power 
is  GIVEN  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth."....  Matt,  xxviii.  18. 

Peter,  in  his  impressive  sermon  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
having  stated  many  things  from  the  Scriptures,  to  prove 
that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  addressed  the  audience  in  these 
"Words,  "  Therefore  let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assured- 
ly, that  God  hath  made  that  same  Jesus^  whom  ye  have 
crucified,  both  Lord  and  Chrsst" Acts  ii.  36. 

In  the  same  sermon,  Peter  also  said,  "  This  Jesus  hath 
God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  witnesses.  Therefore 
being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted^  and  having  received 
of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.".... Acts  ii.  32,  3^, 

In  another  address,  Peter  said,  '*-  The  God  of  Abraham, 
and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  the  God  of  our  fathers,  hath 
GLQRIFIED  his  SoN  jESUS."....Acts  iii.  13» 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  5$ 

And  again,  "  The  God  of  our  fathers  raised  up  Jesus, 
■whom  ye  sle\v  and  hrnged  on  a  tree  :  Him  hath  God  ex- 
ALTFD,  with  his  OWN  RIGHT  HAND,  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
SaVxOR,  for  to  give  repentance  unto  Israel,  and  forgiveness 
of  sins.";...  Acts  V.  30,  31. 

The  same  views  of  the  constituted  character  of  the 
Son  as  Lord  of  all,  are,  if  possible,  more  forcibly  ex- 
pressed bv  Sa  nt  Pau'. 

Speaking  of  the  astonishing  displays  of  the  grace  and 
power  of  God,  he  says,  "  Which  he  wrought  in  Christ, 
when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  set  him  at  his  own 
right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places,  far  above  all  principality, 
and  power,  and  might,  and  dominion,  and  every  name 
which  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but  also  In  that 
which  is  to  come  :  And  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feety 
and  gave  him  to  be  the  Head  over  all  things  to  the 
Church."....Eph.  i.  20—22. 

The  same  Aposth ,  having  in  a  most  striking  manner 
represented  the  astonishing  condescens'on  and  deep  abase- 
ment of  Chrst,  proceeds  to  state  the  rew'(rd given  to  him 
by  God — ''Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exaltfi) 
HIM,  and  GIVEN  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name, 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  evt  rv  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  Heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ; 
and  that  evtry  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
Lord,  to  the  glory  ot    God  the  Father.".... Phil.  ii.  9 — 11. 

To  unprejudiced  mmds,  the  passages  of  Scripture,  al- 
ready adduced,  mav  be  sufficient  to  prove,  that  it  is  by  the 
QiFT  and  PLEASURE  of  God,  that  his  Son  sustains  the  of- 
fi  es  and  bears  the  Divine  names  of  Savior  and  Lord, 
Much  more  of  the  same  import  might  be  produced;  but 
4©»  those  who  can  resist,  evade,  or  set  aside  such  plain  and 
unambiguous  testimony  as  has  been  already  exhibited, 
might  do  the  sam^.  by  a  volume  of  the  same  kind. 

I  have  5^et,  however,  distinctly  to  show,  that  God  has 
constituted  his  Son  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  quick 
and  the  dead.  In  proof  of  the  point  now  before  us,  we 
may  begin  with  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself.  As  he  is 
the  faithful  and  true  Witness,  and  well  acquainted  with  his 
own  character,  much  reliance  may  be  placed  on  his  testi- 
mony. 

It  will  be  needless  here  to  introduce  the  numerous  dec- 
lar^Uons  which  Christ  made  of  his  authority  as  the  Judge 


60  Oji  the  real  Dhlmtij  and  Glory  of  Chris  f» 

of  the  world.  All  we  have  to  do  is  to  show  how  he  came 
by  this  authority  ;  whether  he  possesses  it  as  the  self-ixist- 
ent  God,  or  whether  he  hath  been  invested  with  this 
authority  by  the  Father.   •• 

When  Christ  had  healed  the  impotent  man,  the  Jcv/s 
accused  him  of  profaning  the  Sabbath  day.  In  reply  to 
their  accusation,  Jesus  said,  "  Mv  Father  worketh  hither- 
to, and  I  work."  His  calling  God  his  Father,  the  J  ws 
considered  as  blasphemy,  and  sought  the  more  to  kill  him. 
It  appears  probable,  that  the  Jews  well  understood  the 
principle  of  derived  dignity,  and  that  they  understood 
Christ  as  claiming  divine  dignity  by  professing  to  be  the 
Son  of  God.  They  evidently  understood  Christ,  as  cal'ing 
God  his  Father,  in  the  pe-uliar  and  proper  sense.  For 
while  they  gloried  in  having  "  one  Father,  even  God," 
they  considered  Chiist  as  guilty  of  blasphemy  in  claiming 
the  title  of  the  Son  of  God. 

In  reply  to  their  accusations,  Christ  gave  them  a  more 
full  account  of  his  character  and  dignity,  and  said,  ''  Ve- 
rily, verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  Son  can  do  nothing  of 
himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do  :  for  what  things 
soever  He  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.  For 
the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  him  all  things  that 
himself  doeth  :  and  he  will  shew  him  greater  works  than 
these,  that  ye  may  marvel.  For  as  the  Father  raiseth  up 
the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth 
■whom  he  will.     For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath 

COMMITTED  ALL  JUDGMTNT    UNTO   THE  SoN  ;    that  all  men 

should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."..... 
John  V. 

If  God  hath  COMMITTED  all  judgment  unto  the  Son,  then 
he  has  constituted  the  Son  as  Judge.  But  Christ  gives 
a  further  account — ^'  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The 
hour  is  coming,  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Son  or  God  :  and  they  that  hear  shall  live. 
For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given 
TO  THL  Son  to  have  life  in  himsElf  ;  and  hath  given  him 
authority  to  execute  judgment,  because  he  is  the  Son 
of  man. — I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing  :  As  I  hear,  I 
judge,  and  my  judgment  is  just,  because  I  seek  not  mine 
own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me." 

To  those  who  place  full  confidence  in  Christ  as  a  faith- 
ful and  true  Witness,  his  testimony  may  be  sufficieDt. 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  6X 

But  for  the  conviction  of  those  who  mav  think  th^it  two  or 
three  witnesses  are  needful  in  the  present  case,  we  may  add 
the  testimonies  of  Peter  and  PauU 

Peter,  in  his  sermon  at  the  house  of  Cornelius,  after 
statmg  that  he  and  others  did  eat  and  drink  with  Christ 
after  his  resurrection,  said,  "■  And  he  commanded  us  to 
preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  HE  which  is 
ORDAINED  OF  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the 
dead.'' 

Paul,  in  his  discourse  to  the  people  of  Athens,  said, 
*'  And  the  times  of  this  ignorance  G»'d  winked  at,  but  now 
commanrjeth  all  men  everv  where  to  repent  ;  Because  he 
hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world 
in  righteousness,  by  that  Man  whom  he  hath  ordained, 
whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,  in  thac  he 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

I  see  no  rational  way  in  v  hich  these  testimonies  can  be 
invalidated,  without  impeaching  the  characters  of  the  wit- 
nesses. 

An  earthV  sovereign,  whose  will  is  the  law  of  the  Em- 
pire, can,  at  pleasure,  advance  an  otvn  and  only  Son  to  any  < 
rank  or  office,  which  does  not  involve  a  ooiitradiction. 

The  father  cannot  cause  his  son  to  rank  with  himself 
as  to  age^  nor  can  he  render  the  son  independent  of  himself 
in  respect  to  existence^  dignity^  or  ojffice.  /  But  it  is  in  the 
power  of  a  King  or  Emperor  to  confer  on  his  son  any  office 
in  the  army,  from  an  ensign  to  that  of  commander  in  chief. 
He  may  also,  at  pleasure,  make  his  son  the  governor  of  a 
province,  chief  judge,  or  sole  judge  in  the  highest  court  of 
justice,  or  viceroy  of  half  the  Empire,  or  even  a  copartner 
with  himself  on  the  throne  ;  and  in  testimony  of  the  high 
esteem  he  has  for  his  son,  he  may  place  the  son  at  his  own 
right  hand. 

Such  a  course  of  conduct  in  an  earthly  sovereign  towards 
an  only  son  may  indeed  be  the  result  of  caprice  or  partiali- 
ty ;  but  it  may  a'so  be  the  result  of  consummate  wisdom 
and  benevolence.  For  the  good  of  the  Empire  may  be  in 
the  best  manner  promoted  by  such  measures. 

As  an  earthly  sovereign  may  advance  his  son  to  any  of- 
fice he  pleases,  so  he  may  confer  on  him  whatever  title  of 
dignity  he  may  think  proper.  He  may  dignify  his  son  with 
the  title  of  lord,  or  arch-chancellor  of  the  Empire,  lord 
chief  Justice,  Prince  of  Peace^  President  of  the  Princes^ 


62  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

or  he  may  confer  on  him  his  own  royal  or  imperial  title,  as 
King  or  Emperor.  And  in  respect  to  several  relations,  he 
mav  at  the  same  time  have  various  titles  tf  dignity. 

These  observations  present  to  our  view  something  anal- 
ogous to  the  representations  given  in  Scripture  in  regard 
to  God's  conduct  in  dignif\  Ing  his  only  and  well-beloved 
Son.  The  titles  Lord,  Savior,  and  Judge,  are  titles 
which  properly  belong  to  (k)d.  But  God  had  a  right  to 
confer  the  same  titles  on  his  beloved  Son,  and  to  invest 
him  with  the  authority  and  •st^f-sufficiency  imported  by 
these  titles.  And  if  we  may  safely  rely  on  the  testimony 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  as  proof,  God  has  actually  thus 
dignified  his  Son.... He  hath  *'  exaltfd  him  to  be  a  Prince 

and   a   Savior" "  made   him  to  be  both    Lord    and 

Christ"....'"  given  him  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth".... 
"ordained  him  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead" 
^.."  COMMITTED  a'l  judgment  unto  the  Son,  and  given 
him  a  Name  which  is  above  every  Name."  And  the  Scrip- 
tures afford  no  more  evidence  that  Solomon  sat  on  the 
throne  of  Israel,  by  the  appointment  and  pleasure  of  David, 
than  they  do  that  the  Son  of  God  sits  on  the  Throne  of  the 
Universe  by  the  appointment  and  pleasure  of  God  his  Fa- 
ther. There  are  other  titles  that  belong  to  God,  which 
by  his  pleasure  are  given  to  his  Son. 

God  often  styles  himself  tht  Holy  One,  or  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel.  The  title  of  Holy  One  is  a  so  gven  to  the  Son, 
But  the  Son  is  plainly  distinguished  from  the  self-existent 
Holy  One,  by  being  represented  as  God's  Holy  One,  or 
the  "  Holy  One  of  God."-^— To  the  truth,  in  this  case,  sa- 
tan  himself  was  constrained  to  bear  witness.  "  1  know  thee 
who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One  of  God,"  The  words  of  Da- 
vid, quoted  by  Peter,  are  to  the  same  purpose...."  Neither 
wilt  thou  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corruption." 

The  name  Jehovah,  which  is  often  translated  Lord  in 
the  Old  Testament,  is  a  name  which  belongs  to  God  ;  but 
by  the  pleasure  of  God  this  name  with  some  addition  is 
given  to  the  Son.  "  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous  Branch  ;  and  a 
King  shall  reign  and  prosper,  and  shall  execute  judgment 
and  justice  in  the  earth.  In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved 
and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely  ;  and  this  is  the  name  where- 
by he  shall  be  called,  The  Lord  [or  Jehovah]  our 
Righteousness." 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  43 

That  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  incarnate 
State,  is  intendtd  in  this  prophecy, there  can  be  no  reason- 
able doubt.  And  that  it  is  on  the  ground  of  a  constitut- 
1ED  CHARACTER,  and  by  the  pleasure  of  God  his  Father, 
that  he  btars  the  name  Jehovah  our  Righteousnfss, 
is  sufficiently  plain  from  the  passage  quoted.  It  is  God 
himself  who  gives  the  information  in  the  text  ;  and  this 
one  God  tells  us  of  a  Person  or  Character  vvh'ch  he 
^ovXd  raise  up^  and  the  name  by  which  this  Son  should  be 
callt-d. 

The  name  Jehovah  being  given  to  the  Son,  is  considered 
by  Mr.  Jones  as  evidence  that  the  Son  is  personally  the 
self-existent  God.  But  had  he  compared  one  of  his  own 
remarks  with  the  words  of  an  Apostle,  he  might  have  seea 
his  own  mistake.  Mr.  Jones  suggests,  that  the  name 
Lord,  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  given  to  Christ,, 
is  of  the  same  import  as  Jehovah  in  the  O  d  Testament. 
The  Apostle  Peter  says,  "  Let  all  the  house  of  Israel  knoii} 
assuredly^  that  God  hath  MAUh  that  same  Jesus,  whom  ye 
have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ."  If,  then,  Mr. 
Jones  be  correct  in  affirming  that  Lord  and  Jehovah  are 
terms  of  the  same  import,  and  the  Apostle  be  correct  in 
the  text  just  quoted  ;  am  I  not  authorized  to  say  that  God^ 
hath  madey  or  constiti^^f  his  Son  Jlhovau  our  righteous-' 
ness  f 

On  similar  ground,  and  by  the  same  Divine  pleasure, 
the  Son  has  his  name  called  Emmanuel — Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  Mighty  God,  the  everlasting  Father,  and 
the  Prince  of  Peace.  On  the  very  face  of  the  prophesies, 
in  which  these  names  are  brought  into  view,  it  is  clearly 
intimated,  that  it  is  by  the  pleasure  of  God  that  the  Soa 
bears  these  titles.  The  Son  is  manifestly  the  subject  of  the 
predictions,  and  God  the  Author,  And  God  says  respect- 
ing his  Son,    His  name  shall  be  called  Emmanuel liis 

name  shall  be  called  Wonderful^   &c. 

That  it  is  by  inheritance  as  a  Son,  and  by  the  pleasure 
of  the  Father,  that  Christ  bears  the  name  God,  is  plainly 
revealed  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
— As  the  chapter  was  evidently  designed  to  give  us  a  cor- 
rect and  exalted  view  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  ground 
on  which  he  possesses  such  an  exalted  character  and  such 
Divine  titles,  I  shall  quote  nine  verses  :.... 


64  On  the  real  Dimnity  and  Glory  ofChrhU 

*'  God,  who  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath 
in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom  he 
h^th  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom  also  he  made 
the  worlds  ;  who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glorv;  and  the 
express  image  of  his  Person,  and  upholding  all  things;  by 
the  word  of  his  power,  when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our 
sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high  : 
b.ing  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by 
inheritance  obtained  a  more  excellent  name  than  they." 

Before  I  proceed  farther  in  the  quotations,  I  may  make 
a  few  re  mirks.  ^jAe'^t^riJ^ 

1.  God  in  this  passage  is  tvmidcifuUj^  spoken  of  as  one 
distinct  Person  or  intelligent  Being,  accordingly  the  pro-, 
nouns  for  God  are  he^  his. 

2.  The  Son  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  a  Person  or  Being, 
as  distinct  from  God  as  an)  son  is  distinct  from  his  father  ; 
and  as  distinct  from  God  as  are  prophets  or  angels.... God 
spake  by  the proph€U,,„so  God  spake  by  his  Son* 

3.  As  a  son  is  the  image  of  his  father,  so  the  Son  of 
God  is  represented  as  the  express  image  of  the  Person  of 
God. 

4.  The  Son  is  heir  of  all  things  by  the  appointment  of 
God. 

5.  The  Son  is  so  distinct  from  God,  that  he  can  sit  on 
God's  right  hand. 

6.  By  being  truly  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  inherit- 
ance, Christ  hath  a  better  name  than  the  Angels...  Being 
MADE  so  much  better  than  the  ange's,  as  he  hath  by  inher- 
itance a  more  ex(iellent  name  than  they... .Being  truly 
God's  OWN  Son,  he  inherits  his  Father's  Dignity. 

In  proof  that  tht  Son  hath  a  more  excellent  name  than 
the  angels,  the  Apostle  proceeds  to  state  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament what  had  been  said  respecting  the  Son,  and  what 
had  been  said  respecting  the  Angels  :.... 

"  For  unto  which  of  the  Angels  said  he  at  any  time. 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  dav  have  I  begotten  thee  ?  And 
again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father,  and  he  shall  be  to  me  a 
Son. — And  again,  when  he  bringeth  in  the  first  begot- 
ten into  the  world,  he  saith.  And  let  all  the  Angels  of  God 
worship  him.  And  of  the  Angels,  he  saith.  Who  maketh 
his  Ange's  spirits,  and  his  ministers  a  flame  of  fire.  But 
unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ*  65 

ever :  a  sceptre  of  righteousness  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  king- 
dom. Thou  hast  loved  righteousness,  and  hated  iniquity ; 
therefore  God,  Even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness,  above  thy  fellows." 

Here  we  find  the  Name  which  the  Son  of  God  has  by  in- 
heritance, which  is  better  than  the  name  given  to  An- 
gels. The  self-existent  God  has  been  pleast?d  to  dignify 
his  OWN  and  only  Son  with  his  own  Divine  Name.  And 
we  find  also  a  reason  assigned  for  this  Divine  honor  :...» 
"  Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity  ;  there- 
fore GoD^  EVEN  THY  GoD^  hath  anointed  T a b.E  with  the  cil 
of  gladness  above  thy  fellows." 

If  we  consider  Christ  as  truly  the  Son  of  God,  in  the 
sense  which  has  been  exp-ained,  and  by  inheritance  and  the 
pleasure  of  the  Father  possessing  Divine  dignity  an  1  Di- 
vine titles,  the  whole  passage  appears  perfectly  natural. 
But  if  we  consider  the  Son  as  personally  the  sflf-existent 
and  independent  God,  most  serious  difficulties  immediate- 
ly arise.... Why  is  he  called  God's  Son  l  Why  is  he  uni- 
formly spoken  of  in  contradistinction  to  the  self-existent 
God  ?  Why  is  he  spoken  of  as  having  n  God  who  hath 
anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows  ? 
What  God  could  thus  anoint  the  self-existent  God  ? 

The  passage  under  considerat'on  is  not  the  only  one  in 
which  the  name  God  is  applied  to  the  Son.  Nor  is  this 
the  only  passage  in  which  the  Son  of  God  is  represented  as 
having  a  God  as  well  as  a  Father.  Christ  said  to  his  dis- 
ciples, "  I  go  to  my  Father  and  to  your  Father^  to  my 
God  and  to  your  Go d"^"^ — And  in  the  Epistles  we  several 
times  read  of  "  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  jftsus 
Christ''^ — and  "  the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ J*^  As 
Solomon,  after  he  was  crowned,  had  3.  father  and  a  King  ; 
so  Christ,  on  the  Throne  of  the  Universe,  had  a  Father 
and  a  God.  If  Christ  had  been  the  self  existent  God,  it 
would  have  been  just  as  proper  to  speak  of  the  God  of  the 
Father^  as  the  God  of  the  Son.  But  if  he  be  truly  the  Sok 
of  God,  and  as  such  sustains  Divine  offices  and  bears  Di- 
vine titles,  then  no  difficulty  results  from  his  being  ca  \itd 
Lord,  Savior,  or  even  God.  For  these  tides,  as  borne 
by  the  Son,  do  not  import  personal  self-existence,  but  what 
he  is  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  the  pleasure  of  his  Fa- 
ther. 


66  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ* 

After  Solomon  had  been  anointed  King  bv  order  of  Da» 
v*d,  Jonathan  reportt-d  the  matter  to  Ajionljah,  and  said, 
*'  Verily  our  Lord,  King  David,  hath  made  Solomon  King,"^ 
And  it  is  not  improbable  that  this  event  was  typical  of  the 
conduct  of  God  in  anointing  and  exalting  his  Son.  And 
as  truly  as  David  constituted  his  son  Solomon  to  be  Kirig^ 
so  truly  hath  our  heavenly  Father  constituted  ins  Son  to  be 
Savior,  Lord,  and  God.  He  hath  invested  him  with 
Divine  fulness  and  Divine  authority,  and  conferred  on  him 
his  own  Divine  names  and  titles.  If  th«  Son  of  God  did 
not  possess  a  fulness  adequate  to  his  authorit}^,  we  might 
view  tiie  Divine  names,  as  applied  to  him,  as  h'gh  sound- 
ing and  empty  tides  ;  but  while  we  are  assured  that  all 
power,  or  authority,  is  given  unto  him  in  heaven  and 
earth,  we  are  also  assured  that  "  it  hath  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  al!  fulness  should  dwell  ;  and  that  in  him  dwell- 
eth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.^' 

When,  therefore,  I  speak  or  the  Son  as  called  Savior, 
Lord,  and  God,  on  the  ground  of  a  constituted  charactt-rj 
I  wish  to  be  understood  as  mplying  not  m<"rely  ojficial  cha- 
racter^ but  such  a  perfect  union  of  the  Son  with  the  Father, 
that  in  him  properly  dwel's  the  infinite  fulness  and  all-suf- 
ficitncy  of  God,  so  that  in  respect  to  fulness  as  well  as 
authority  he  is  one  with  the  Father. 

We  must  suppose,  that  God  is  the  best  judge  of  the 
ground  on  which  he  styled  his  Son  God.  And  we  know, 
from  the  Scriptures,  that  anointing  with  oil  was  an  ap- 
pointed ceremony  of  induction  to  office.  Thus  Prophets, 
Priests,  and  Kings,  w^re  inaugurated  by  the  command  of 
God.  T\\Q  Oil  was  an  instituted  type  or  emblem  of  the 
Spirit ;  and  these  ancient  inaugurations  were  probably  typ- 
ical of  the  'nauguration  of  Oirist  as  the  promised  Messiah  ; 
on  which  occasion  the  Holy  Spirit^  \vhich  had  been  typifi- 
ed by  the  holy  oil^  descended  and  abodje  upon  him.  And 
in  the  address  of  the  Father  to  the^Son,  in  which  the  Son 
is  distinctly  called  God,  the  ceremony  of  anointing  is  dis- 
tinctly brought  into  view,  to  show  that  it  is  en  the  ground 
of  a  constituted  character  that  the  Son  is  called  God— 
"  Therefore  God,  even  THY  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  Thus  the  Son,  be- 
ing ?nade  or  constituted  so  much  better  than  the  Angels,  hath 
by  inheritance  a  more  excellent  name  than  they* 


On  the  real  Drjinxtij  and  Glory  of  Christ,  €7 

John  the  Baptist,  in  his  testimony  concerning  the  Son  of 
Cyod,  savs,  "  He  whom  God  hath  sent,  speaketh  the  words 
©f  God;"  and  gives  this  as  the  reason  whv  the  words  that 
he  speaketh  are  the  words  of  God,  "  For  God  giveth  not  the 
Spirit _bu  measure  unto  him y — And  Peter,  in  his  discourse 
at  the  house  of  Cornelias,  mertions  ^'  How  God  anointt  d 
J'Siis  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  Power  i"*^ 
bv  which  wc  mav  understand,  that  in  this  anointings  the 
Son  was  endued  with  Divine  fulness^  and  invested  with  Di' 
vine  authority. 

In  expressing  Dlv  ne  commands,  in  foretelling  events, 
and  in  performing  miracles,  the  Son  of  Gud  adopted  a  st\  le 
of  speaking,  very  different  from  that  of  the  Prophets.  He 
did  not  preface  '^vhat  he  uttered  with  a  "  Thus  ^aith  the 
Lord  ;"  but  his  usual  strle  was,  "  I  say  unto  you" — "  I 
will,  be  thou  clean,"  &c.  On  this  ground,  an  argument 
has  often  bee  :  form  :d,  in  proof  of  the  Inpothesis  that  Christ 
was  personally  the  independent  God.  In  leference  to  this 
argument,  I  would  ask, 

1.  Was  it  not  to  he  expected  that  God's  own  Son  would 
adopt  a  style  corrcspondmg  with  his  dignity-  as  the  Son 
OF  God  I  Would  you  not  expect  that  a  King's  son  should 
adopt  a  style  in  speaking,  different  from  an  ordinary  am- 
bassador ?-^-But, 

2.  I  wou  d  ask,  vrhether  justice  has  been  done  in  urging 
the  above  argument?  It  is  indeed  a  truth,  that  Christ 
spake  in  a  style  different  from  the  Prophets ;  but  it  is  also 
true,  that  no  Prophet  was  ever  more  particular  and  careful 
than  Christ  was,  to  let  it  be  known  that  he  cime  not  in  his 
own  name^  but  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  j  that  the 
wdrds  which  he  spake,  he  spake  not  of  himself;  and  that 
the  Father  in  him  did  the  work.  How  Qften  did  he  de- 
clare, in  the  most  unequivoca  manner,  to  this  effect,  "  I 
came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but 
the  will  of  the  Father  that  sent  me." — ''  I  proceeded  forth 
and  came  from  God  ;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he  sent 
me" — "•  The  words  that  I  speak,  I  speak  not  of  myself." 

If  John  has  given  us  a  true  account,  Christ  distinctly 
mentioned  his  ht'm^  sent  of  the  Father,  nearly  forty  times. 
How,  Sir,  has  it  come  to  pass,  that  these  ideas  have  been 
so  much  kept  out  of  view  in  urging  the  argument  from 
Christ's  peculiar  style  in  speaking?     I  would  by  no  mtaus 


68  On  the  real  Dtvimtif  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

suggest  a  suspicion  of  dishonesty  ;  but  is  there  not  evidence 
of  a  strong  prepossession^  by  which  good  men  have  been 
led  to  overlook  some  things  which  are  of  weight,  and  to 
form  their  arguments  without  due  consideration  ? 


LETTER  V, 

How  the  Son  of  God  Income  the  Son  of  Man, 
REV.  SIR, 

ACCORDING  to  3^our  theorv,  the  Son  of  God  be- 
came the  Son  of  Man  '-'■  by  taking  to  himself  a  true  body 
and  a  reasonable  soul,"  or  a  proper  Man.  It  is  mv  object 
to  prove,  that  the  Son  of  God  became  thf  Son  of  Man 
by  becoming  himself  the  soul  of  a  human  body. 

It  has  been  supposed,  that  the  Son  of  God  could  not, 
"with  any  propriety,  be  called  a  man  on  the  hypothesis  I 
have  stated.  But  cou  d  he  not  with  much  more  propriety 
be  called  a  man,  if  he  became  the  soul  of  a  human  body^ 
than  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  became  united  to  a  proper 
human  soul  and  body  or  a  proper  Man  ?  If  the  Son  of 
God  became  united  to  a  proper  Man,  the  Son  and  the 
]VIan  were  two  distinct  inteVigences,  and  the  union  would 
be  propeily  a  union  of  two  Persons. 

Besides,  you  say  th"t  this  union  does  not  imply  that  the 
Divine  nature  became  Human  nature^  nor  that  the  Human 
nature  became  Divine  nature^  nor  that  these  two  Natures 
•were  mixed  or  blended.  These  positions,  if  I  mistake  not, 
are  precisely  of  the  same  import  a?  the  follow^ing — The 
Son  of  God  did  not  become  Man,  nor  did  the  Man  be- 
come the  Son  of  Goti,  noi  were  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Man  mixed  or  blended.  For  so  far  as  I  can  discern  any 
meaning  to  your  -anguage,  the  Son  of  God  is  the  same  as 
the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ,  and  the  Man  the  same  as 
the  Human  Nature.  It  will  hence  appear,  that  the  Son 
OF  God  did  not  become  Man,  but  only  became  united  to  a 
Man. 

There  are  a  multitude  of  considerations  and  passages  of 
Scripture,  which  may  be  adduced  in  support  of  the  hypoth- 
esis that  the  Son  of  God  became  Man,  or  the  Son  of  Man^ 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  69 

by  becoming  the  soul  of  a  human  body.     Out  of  many,  I 
select  the  following  :.... 

1.  If  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  had  been  united  to  a  second 
Divine  and  self-existent  Person,  we  might  reasonably  ex- 
pect to  find,  that,  in  som(^  of  bis  discourses,  he  had  men- 
tioned that  union.  But  in  no  instance  did  he  intimate  that 
he  was  united  to  any  Divine  Person  but  the  Father.  His 
union  with  the  Father  he  often  mentioned,  and  he  affirmed 
that  it  was  the  Father  in  him  that  did  the  work. 

2.  Had  the  Son  of  God  become  Man  in  no  other  sense 
than  "  by  taking  to  himself  a  true  body  and  reasonable  soul," 
and  had  he  been,  as  you  suppose,  personally  the  independ- 
ent God,  he  could  not  with  any  propriety  have  asserted  his 
personal  dependence.  For  however  dependent  his  human 
nature  might  be,  as  3.  person  be  would  have  been  independ- 
ent and  self-siifficient.  Yet,  it  is  believed,  we  have  no  ac- 
count of  any  other  person  in  the  Scriptures,  who  said  so 
much  o£hs  per s'onal  dependence^  as  did  Jesus  Christ  the 
Son  of  God.  In  the  most  personal  and  most  tmphaticnl 
manner  he  declared,  "  /canofM/ATf  own  self  do  no  «/^G." 
It  is  remarkable,  that  any  of  the  friends  of  Christ  should 
think  it  dishonorary  to  him  to  say  that  he  was  dependent, 
whi'e  he  himself  so  constantly  affirmed  his  dependence  on 
the  Father.  Not  only  did  Christ  abundantly  assert  his  p(  r- 
sonal  dependence  on  the  Father,  but,  as  a  Person,  and  as 
a  Son,  he  prayed  to  the  Father  yir  himself  as  the  Son  of 
God.     See  his  solemn  prayer,  John  xvii. 

3.  When  Angeis  have  appeared  "  in  the  likeness  of  men," 
they  have  been  denominated  either  Angels  or  3fen^  just  as 
the  Lord  Jesus  is  sometimes  called  the  Son  of  God  and 
sometimes  the  Son  of  Mati.-^The  Angels  who  appeared  to 
Lot,  in  Sodom,  are,  in  the  same  narrative,  several  times 
called  Angels^  and  several  times  called  Men. — The  prophet 
Daniel,  in  speaking  of  the  Angel  who  appeared  to  him, 
savs,  ".The  Man  Gabriel  whom  I  had  seen  in  the  vis- 
ion." 

Shall  we.  Sir,  accuse  Moses  and  Danielof  great  impro- 
priety, in  speaking  of  those  personages  sometimes  as  An- 
gels and  sometimes  as  3Ien  P  They  were  called  men, 
because  they  appeared  "  in  the  likeness  ofmen^'^  that  is,  in 
an  embodied  state.  If  a  transient  or  an  occasional  residence 
in  bodies  of  human  form  might  be  sufficient  ground  on 
which  to  denominate  Angels  Men,  a /7^rwa?ze«?  residence 


70  0?i  the  real  Dhhiity  and  Glory  ofChrisU 

in  a  human  body  might  be  sufficient  ground   on    which  to 
denominate  the  Son  of  God  the  Son  of  Man, 

4.  The  Scripture  accounts  of  the  inc motion  of  the  Son 
of  God  contains  no  intimation  that  he  took  "  to  himself  a 
true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul  j"  but  the  contrarv  is  plain- 
ly suggested. — "  The  Word  was  made  flesh."  John  i.  14. 
*•  (jod  had  sworn  to  David,  that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins, 
according  to  the Jicsh^  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit  upon 
his  tlirone."  Acts  ii.  30. — '*  Concerning  his  Son  Jesus 
^  Christ  our  Lord,  who  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David,  ac- 
cording to  th^'JleshJ*'^  Rom,  i.  3 — "  Whose  are  the  Fa- 
thers, and  of  whom,  as  concerning  the  Jlcsh^  Christ  came.'* 
Rom.  ix.  5. 

Why  wt-re  these  phrases  inserted,  according  to  the  fiC^h^ 
or  concerning  the  jieah^  but  to  tea  h  us  that  our  Lord  is  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  David  omY  according  to  the 
jiesh^  or  in  respect  to  the  flesh  P 

In  the  first  chapter  of  toe  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
writer  gives  us  a  most  exalted  character  of  the  Son  of  God; 
and  in  the  second,  he  represents  his  incarnation.  "■  For 
as  much  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  ikewise  took  part  of  the  sam«.."— 
Again,  '*•  Wherefore,  in  all  things,  it  behoved  him  to  be 
made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he  might  h^.  a  merciful 
and  faithful  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God, 
to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  People  ; 
For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered,  being  tempted,  he  ^s 
able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted." 

How,  Sir,  are  the  children  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood  ? 
Is  it  by  taking  to  themselves  true  bodies  and  reasonal:»Ie 
souls  ?  Is  it  not  rather  by  being  reasonable  souls  of  human 
bodies  ?  Or  by  being  in  an  embodied  state,  in  union  with 
fesh  and  blood  f  If  so,  then  for  Christ  to  become  like  his 
brethren^  a  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  must  become 
in  an  embodied  state,  or  become  the  soul  of  a  human  body. 
Before  his  incarnation,  he  was  not  like  to  the  seed  of 
Abraham  in  respect  to  partaking  of  flesh  and  blood  ; 
but  it  behoved  him  so  to  be,  that  he  tnight  be  a  merciful 
High  Priest ;  and  that  bv  being  himself  subject  to  those 
temptations  which  resu't  from  a  uni(m  with  flesh  and  blood, 
he  might  know  how  to  s}mpatize  with  us,  and  to  succor 
those  who  are  tempted.  But  if  his  incarnation  implied  no 
more  than  his  becoming  united  to  a  Man,  how  was  he  pre- 


On  the  real  Dvomiti}  and  Glory  ofChrzsU  71 

pared  by  this  to  be  "  touched  with  the  feelings  of  our  in- 
iirmities  V 

In  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  same  Epistle,  it  is  represent- 
ed, that  when  the  Son  was  about  to  come  into  the  world, 
he  said  to  his  Father,  "'  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst 
not,  but  a  Body  hast  thou  prepared  me."  The  Son  did 
not  say,  *'  a  true  bodv  and  reasonable  soul"  hast  thou  pre- 
pared me  ;  nor,  a  3fan  hast  thou  prepared  me  ;  but  "  a 
Body  hast  thou  prepared  me."  And  does  not  his  language' 
plainly  suggest,  that  he  himself  was  to  be  the  Soul  oi  thzt 
Body  which  God  had  prepared  ?  Let  common  sense  de- 
cide the  question. 

5.  Thi  re  is  abundant  evidence,  that  the  Person,  who 
called  himself  the  Son  of  Man,  had  pre-existence ;  but 
there  is  no  ev  dence  that  he  pre-existed  otherwise  than  as 
the  Son  of  God,  or  the  Angel  of  God. 

That  the  Son  of  God  had  pre-existence,  is  not  doubted 
by  you  ;  and  it  is  amazing,  that  it  should  be  denied  by 
any  man  who  professes  a  respect  for  the  Oraches  of  God- 
In  addition  to  all  that  is  said  of  the  Son  of  God  as  the  Cre- 
ator, or  the  one  by  whom  God  created  all  things  ;  and  all 
that  is  said  of  him  as  the  Angel  of  God  ;  and  a  I  that  is 
said  of  the  glory  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the 
"world  was  ;  and  all  that  is  said  of  his  incarnation  ;  there 
are  a  multitude  of  texts  which  naturally  import  his  pre-ex- 
istence. 

His  pre-existence  is  naturally  implied  in  the  numerous 
passages  which  speak  of  God's  sending  his  Son  into  the 
world,  and  of  God's  giving  his  Son.  The  same  idea  is 
implied  in  all  that  Christ  said  of  his  coming  forth  from  the 
Father^  and  coming  down  from  Heaven^  and  earning  forth 
from  God,  Such  representations  naturally  import  that  he 
had  existed  with  the  Father,  with  God,  and  in  heaven,  be- 
fore he  was  sent^  or  before  he  came  into  the  world. 

To  the  unbelieving  Jews  Christ  said,  "  If  God  were 
your  Father,  ye  would  love  me  :  for  I  proceeded  forth 
and  came  from  God  ;  neither  came  I  of  myself,  but  he 
sent  me."  To  his  disciples  he  said,  "  For  the  Father 
himself  loveth  you,  because  ye  have  loved  me,  and  have 
believed  that  I  came  out  from  God  :  I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world  :  again  I  leave  the 
world,  and  go  to  the  Father." 


72  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

These  passages  Christ  spake  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  and 
they  plainly  import  two  things....         j 

1.  That  the  Son  is  a  being  distinct  from  God,  so  dis- 
tinct that  he  could  proceed  for  rh  and  come  from  God 

2.  That  the  Son  existed  with  God  before  he  came  into 
the  world. 

Similar  things  Christ  spake  of  himself  as  the  Son  of 
Man.  On  another  occasion  he  said  much  of  his  being  the 
Bread  of  God  which  cometh  down  from  heaven.  John  vi. 
In  this  discourse  he  styled  himself  the  Son  of  Man.  Some 
of  his  disciples  were  displeased  with  what  he  said  on  this 
occasion.  "  When  Jesus  knew  in  himself  that  his  disci- 
ples murmured  at  it,  he  said  unto  them,  Doth  this  offend 
yoii  ?  What  and  if  ye  shall  see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend 
up  where  Hi  was  before  .^" 

These  several  passages,  compared  together,  plainly  im- 
port not  only  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  the  iden- 
tity of  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man. 

6.  The  personal  identity  of  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Son  of  Man  is  plainly  implied  in  the  declaration  of  St. 
Paul,  Eph.  iv.  10.  Speaking  of  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
he  says,  "  He  that  descended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended 
up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things." — 
You  will,  Sir,  it  is  believed,  admit  that  it  was  the  Son  of 
God  who  descended^  and  the  Son  of  Man  who  ascended. 
And  if  he  that  descended  is  the  same  who  ascended^  then  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man  are  the  same.  Of  course, 
the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man  by  becoming  the 
soul  of  a  human  body. 

7*  You  will  grant  that  it  was  the  Son  of  Man,  or  the 
Man  Christ  Jesus,  who  died  on  the  cross,  who  was  ra  sed 
from  the  dead,  and  exalted  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  But 
all  these  things  are  distinctly  and  abundantly  affirmed  of 
Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  or  as  our  Lord  and  Savior. 
I  have  no  occasion  to  produce  ar.y  passages  of  Scripture  to 
prove  that  these  things  are  said  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  Man ^ 
but  I  may  produce  some  passages  to  show  that  these  same 
things  are  affirmed  of  God's  own  Son,  by  whom  he  made 
the  worlds,  and  the  one  who  is  now  our  Lord  and  Sav- 
ior. 

"  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son."  Rom.  viii.  32. 
"  Concerning  his  Soii  fi-sus  C  rist  our  Lord^  which  was 
made  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh,  and  de- 


iin  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  73 

tlared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,  according  to  the 
spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  deadP 
Rom.  i.  3,  4.—"  Who  raised  up  Jesvs  oVr  L^RDfrom  the 
ce-'d^**  Rom.  iv.  24. — "  And  God  hath  both  raised  up  the 
LoRDy  and  wiU  also  raise  us  up  by  his  own  power."  1  Cor. 
vi.  14. — ^*'  Wait  for  his  Son  from  hf  aven,  whom  he  raised 
Jromihe  dead^  1  Thes.  i.  10- — "  Now  the  God  of  peace, 
i}[\2it  brought  again  from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jisus^  that 
Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep."     Heb.  xiii.  20. 

In  these  passages  it  is  plainly  repreist-nted,  that  it  was 
in  truth  that  Being,  who  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  our 
Lord,  and  the  Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  who  per^ 
sonally  died  on  the  cross,  and  was  raised  from  the  dead  by 
the   power  of  God. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  and 
in  the  very  connexion  in  which  the  work  of  creation  is  at- 
tributed to  Christ,  he  is  styled  the  "  first  born  from  the 
dead,  that  in  all  things  he  might  hnve  the  pre-eminence.'* 
''  Respecting  ihis  same  Son  our  Lord,  David  said,  "  The 
Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  my  right  hand  till  I 
inake  thy  foes  thy  footstool."  Of  the  same  Son  of  God  it  is 
said," When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  s'ms^sat  down  on  ^ 
the  right  hand  of  the  Majbs  y  on  high."  Heb.  i.  3. — But 
after  this  Son  had  become  united  to  the  Body  which  God 
had  prepared,  he  was  often  called  a  Man,  or  the  Son  ot 
Man.  Therefore  the  same  writer  says,  ''  But  this  Man^ 
aftel*  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins  forever,  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  God."     Heb.  x.  12. 

8.  Additional  evidence  of  the  identity  of  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  Son  of  Man,  may  appear  from  what  is  said 
of  Christ  as  the  Lord  and  the  Son,  the  Root  and  the 
Offspring  of  David. 

It  was  the  belief  of  the  JeWs,  founded  on  prophecy,  that 
the  Messiah  should  be  the  Son  of  David.  "  While  the 
Pharisees  were  gathered  together,  Jesus  asked  them,  say- 
ing. What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?  Whose  son  is  he  ?  They 
say  unto  him.  The  son  of  David.  He  *saith  unto  thern^ 
How' then  doth  David  in  spirit  call  him  Lord,  sayings 
The  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  on  m}  right  hand 
till  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool  ?  If  David  then 
call  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  son  ?"     Matt.  xxii.  41—4-5. 

This,  Sir,  was  lo  the  Pharisees  an  unanswerable  qiK  s* 
tion  ;  nor  do  I  see  that  any  rational  answer  can  be  ^iven 
K  I 


74  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,- 

to  it  on  your  theory.  For  the  question  plainly  supposed 
the  Lord  of  David  and  the  Son  of  David  to  ht  but  one  in- 
telligent Being.  But  your  hypothesis  would  be,  th?t  the 
L.ORD  of  David  w^as  united  to  a  Man  who  was  the  Son  of 
JDiviD.  But  could  the  Lord  of  David  be  thus  the  Son  of 
David  ?  No,  Sir,  the  Lord  of  David  v^rould  be  one  Per- 
son, and  the  son  of  David  another.  But  if  the  Lord  of 
David  became  the  soul  of  a  body  which  was  of  the  seed  oi 
l)avid,  then  would  Christ  be  both  David's  Son  and  David's 
Lord. 

The  other  text  to  be  considered,  is  this,  "  I  am  the 
KooT  and  the  Offspring  of  David.*' 

You  will  observe,  that  in  this  passage,  Christ  speaks  in 
a  personal  manner,  and  as  one  individual  intelligence.  He 
does  not  say,  /  am  the  Roqj  of  David,  and  the  Man  united 
to  me  is  the  Offspring  of  David.  But  as  one,  and  only 
one  intelligence,  he  says,  "  /am  the  Root  and  the  Off* 
SPRING  of  David." 

9.  In  exhibiting  a  contrast  between  Adam  and  Christ, 
the  Apostle  Paul  says,  "The  first  Man  is  of  the  earth  earthy, 
the  second  Man  is  the  Lord  from  Heaven."  What  is 
here  asserted  of  Christ,  accords  with  his  numerous  decla- 
rations that  he  came  down  from  heaven,  and  came  forth 
from  God.  The  Apostle  does  not  say  that  the  Second 
Man  was  unitd  to  the  Lord  from  Heaven  ;  but,  the  Sec- 
ond Man  IS  the  Lord  from  Heaven.  Suppose,  Sir,  that 
Daniel  had  said  in  some  of  his  writings.  The  Man  whom 
I  saw  in  the  vision  was  Gabriel  from  heaven  ;  what  idea 
■would  his  words  have  suggested  \  Would  you  not  have 
supposed  that  Gabriel  appeared  in  an  embodied  state,  or  in 
the  likeness  of  a  Man  ?  You  will  be  pleased  to  answer  the 
question,  and  make  the  application. 

10.  Christ  stated  to  his  disciples  this  question,  "Whom 
do  men  say  that  /,  the  Son  of  Man^  am  ?"  They  answer- 
ed. He  then  stated  another,  *'  Whom  say  ye  that  /am  ?" 
Peter  replied,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  liv- 
ing God." — This  answer  Christ  approved  in  the  most  de- 
cided manner.  And  yow  will  be  pleased,  Sir,  to  notice 
the  definite  manner  in  which  the  question  was  proposed 
and  answered. — Christ,  calling  himself  the  Son  or  Man, 
demands^heir  opinion  concerning  him.  The  answer  is  as 
definite  as  the  question,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  LIVING  God."    Therefore  the  Son  or  Man  is  the  Soj« 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ*  75 

OF  THE  LIVING  GoD.  The  Son  of  God  was  not  united  to 
the  Son  of  Man  ;  but  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of 
Man  by  becomin;^  the  soul  of  a  human  body.  Thus  the 
Second  Man  was  the  Lord  from  Heaven. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

MR.  Caleb  Alexander,  in  his  remarks  on  Mr.  Emlyti, 
has  taken  ground  different  from  yours.  He  says,  "  Christ 
is  properly  a  complex  Person,  He  has  a  distinct  human 
personality  and  a  distinct  Divine  personality — and  yet  so 
united  as  to  make  a  cow j&Z^j^  Person.  Christ  has  a  proper 
Divine  intelligence  and  a  proper  human  intelligence.'*'^  p.  57. 
He  a^so  states,  that  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God  m  refer- 
ence to  his  humanity — "  his  lowest  capae  ty  and  character** 
—That  be  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  because  his  "  human 
nature  was  created  by  an  immediate  act."   •  p.  43,  44. 

These  positions  are  contradicted  by  Dr.  Hopkins,  in  a 
very  decided  manner.  And,  if  I  mistake  not,  they  are 
contradicted  by  the  general  tenor  of  the  Gospel.  Those 
who  may  have  adopted  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Alexander, 
will  be  likely  to  suppose  that  my  labor  has  been  in  vain  in 
attempting  to  prove  that  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of 
Man  mean  the  same  intelligence.  For  this  they  would 
have  admitted  without  proof. 

Though  I  respect  Mrf  Alexander,  I  cannot  say  that  I 
am  any  better  pleased  with  his  theory  than  I  am  with  yours. 
But  as  I  do  not  learn  that  his  views  have  been  generally 
adopted,  I  shall  only  state  some  questions  respecting  them. 

In  respect  to  personality^  I  must  think  that  he  takes 
more  correct  ground  than  Dr.  Hopkins  :  For  if  it  be  true, 
that  in  Christ  a  Divine  Person  is  united  to  a  proper  Man, 
no  reason  can  be  given  why  they  should  not  be  considered 
as  two  Persons.  But  will  it  not  plainly  result  from  Mr. 
Alexander's  theory,  that  He  who  died  for  our  offences  was 
strictly  a  huinan  Person^  and  no  more  than  a  man  ?  That 
Person  might  indeed  be  the  Son  of  God  in  his  sense  of  the 
terms  ;  for  in  his  view  the  Son  of  God  was  no  more  than  a 
Man — a  Man  united  to  a  Divine  Person.  But  why  is 
this  Man  called  God's  own  and  only  Son,  the  only  begotten 
of  the  Father  ? — He  was  "  created  by  an  immediate  act,'" 
says  Mr.  Alexander.  And  so  was  Adam  ;  and  so,  prob- 
ably, wer^  the  Angels.     How  then  is  Christ  God's  QNX..y 


7Q  On  the  real  Dlvinhy  and  Glory  ofChrtsU 

Son  ?  Why  is  it  represented  as  so  great  a  display  of  God's 
love,  to  give  such  a  Son  to  die  for  us  ?^  If  there  be  any 
great  display  of  Divine  ^ove  on  h's  theors%  must  it  not  be 
found  in  this,  that  God  accepted  the  obedience  unto  death, 
of  one  man,  as  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  the  v/hole 
world  ?  As  much  might,  perhaps,  be  said,  had  Moses 
died  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

But  if  Christ  b^  called  the  Son  of  God  in  respect  to  his 
*'  lowest  capacity  and  character,"  why  did  he  never  speak 
of  his  having  a  higher  character  than  that  of  the  Son  of 
God  ?  How  came  the  Jews  to  accuse  Christ  of  blasphemy^ 
for  saying  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  ?  Wo\ild  the  Jews 
ever  have  thought  of  accus  ng  him  with  blasphemy  for  say- 
ing that  he  was  "  created  by  an  immediate  act"  ?  or  for  say- 
ing, In  the  same  sense  that  Adam  was,  I  am  the  Son  of 
God  t  Christ  received  worship  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  was 
it  on  the  ground  that  he  was  '•'•  created  by  an  immediate  act"  ? 


LETTER  VI, 

The  preceding  Doctrines  all  implied  in  PhiUppiins  ii.  5 — «11. 
.        REV    SIR, 

NO  portion  of  Scripture  has,  perhaps,  been  more  abun- 
dant'y  quoted,  nor  more  fully  relied  on,  by  Athanasian 
writers,  than  Philippians  ii.  6.  This  text,  therefore,  with 
six  other  verses  in  connexion,  I  shall  attempt  to  examine. 
And  I  flatter  myself  that  you  will  be  convinced  that  the 
Athanasian  theorv  can  have  no  support  from  this  passage  ; 
and  that,  in  it,  is  fairly  impled  several  of  the  propositions 
which  I  have  aimed  to  establish. 

The  verses  to  be  considered  are  the  fo  lowing  :— 

5  ''  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ 
Jesus  ; 

6  Who  being  ^n  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God : 

7  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men : 

8  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled 
himself,  and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  tne  death 
of  the  cross* 


On  the  real  Dimnity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  7/ 

9  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and 
given  him  a  name  which  is  above  every  name  : 

10  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow, 
of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under 
the  earth  ; 

11  And  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 

In  the  preceding  verses,  the  Apostle  had,  in  the  most 
affectionate  manner,  exhorted  Christians  to  humility,  con- 
dt'scension,  and  benevolence.  To  enforce  his  exhortation, 
he  urgeci  the  example  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  rich,  and 
yet  for  our  sakes  became  poor ;  and  the  glorious  reward 
which  God  bestowed  on  him  for  what  he  had  done  and  suf- 
fered. To  exhibit  the  example  of  Christ  in  a  just  and 
striking  light,  he  distinctly  brought  into  view  his  state  of 
Godlike  splendor  and  Majesty  before  his  incarnation  ;  who 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God. 

The  Son's  being  in  the  form  of  God,  most  probably  re- 
fers to  the  glory  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was,  the  glory  that  he  had  in  God's  creating  all 
things  by  him,  and  the  glory  that  he  had  as  the  Angel  of 
God's  presence. 

But  as  this  verse  is  so  much  relied  on  in  support  of  the 
doctrine  that  the  Son  is  personally  the  self»exi stent  God, 
it  behoves  me  to  be  the  more  particular  in  the  exam  nation. 
It  is  not,  for  me,  easy  to  discern  any  thing  in  the  sixth 
verse,  nor  in  the  whole  connexion,  which  has  the  least  ap- 
pearance of  favoring  that  idea,  unless  it  be  found  in  th^ 
import  of  the  word  equal— ^''^  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God."  The  argument  is  simply  this,  No  Per- 
son but  the  self-existent  God  can  be  equal  with  the  self-  ex- 
istent God  ;  therefore  the  Son  is  the  self-existent  God.—? 
And  the  utmost  that  can  possibly  be  meant,  in  any  case, 
by  the  word  equals  is  insisted  on  as  the  only  possible 
meaning  of  the  term  ;  and  that  too  in  the  face  of  the  natu- 
ral import  both  of  the  text  itself  and  the  connexion.  For 
it  is  ure^ed  that  the  Son  is  absolutely^  essentially^  and  inde-^ 
fendently  J  Q^v AL  with  God.  And  this  construction  of  the 
term  seems  to  be  urged  with  as  much  confidence  as  though 
the  word  had  never  been,  and  never  could  be,  used  in  s 
<)ua^ified  sense. 


7S  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

But,  Sir,  is  it  a  truth  that  the  wordiequal  always  implies 
absolute  equality  in  the  persons  or  things  which  are  said 
to  be  equal  ?  Does  it  always  imply  equality  in  every  re- 
spect f — And  do  we  not  often  use  the  term  in  respect  to 
two  Persons  who  are  supposed  to  be  unequal  in  seveial 
respects  t  When  we  say  of  a  ^o;?,  that  he  is  equal  with  his 
Father^  do  we  ever  mean  that  he  has  existed  as  long  as 
his  Father  ?  or  that  he  and  his  Father  are  but  one  Being  ? 
May  not  a  son  be  as  rich  as  his  Father,  and  yet  have  de- 
rived all  his  riches  from  his  Father  ?  Might  not  Solomon 
be  equal  to  David  in  authority^  though  he  derived  all  his 
authority  from  David  ? 

It  is,  Sir,  no  robbery  for  a  King*s  son  to  think  of  him- 
self according  to  the  authority  or  dignity  which  his  Father 
has  given  him.— David  said,  as  it  is  supposed,  respecting 
Ahithophel  his  councillor,  "  But  it  was  thou,  a  man,  mine 
equaly  my  guide,  and  my  acquaintance."  Do  you.  Sir, 
suppose,  that  these  words  imply  that  Ahithophel  was,  in 
ell  respects^  David's  equal  ?  If  David  had  said,  "  a  man 
my  companion^^  would  not  this  term  have  expressed  about 
the  same  idea  as  the  word  equal  ?  Why  then  should  you 
be  so  very  positive,  that  the  term  equals  as  used  by  the 
Apostle,  must  mean  an  absolute  e^u^lity,  even  a  co-eterni- 
ty of  God  and  his  Son  ? 

Let  us  notice  another  text  which  evidently  respects  Je- 
sus Christ :  "  Awake,  O  sword,  against  my  shepherd^  and 
against  the  Man  that  is  my  fellow.'*^  May  it  not  be  reason- 
ably supposed,  th^LtJellow  in  this  text  means  the  same  as 
equal  in  the  other  ? 

But  the  very  text  itself,  in  dispute,  may  perhaps  be  found 
to  contain  sufficient  evidence  that  Christ  is  not  the  self-ex- 
istent God  ;  and  that  God  and  Christ  are  as  distinctly  tii^ 
Beinge  as  any  other  father  and  son. 

"  \Vho  being  in  thtfonnoi  God" — -Is  not  Christ  evi-. 
dently  spoken  of  in  contradistinction  to  God  ?  If  he  be  a 
Person  in  contradistinction  to  the  self-existent  God,  he  is 
certainly  not  the  self-existent  God,  unless  there  be  more 
Gods  than  one.  If  the  Apostle  had  been  speaking  of  the 
Father,  and  had  said  of  him,  "  Who  being  in  th^  form  of 
God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God,"  would 
not  such  a  representation  of  the  Father  have  been  a  mani- 
fest impropriety  ?     But  if  the  Son  be  the  self-existent  God^ 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrisU  ItU 

auch  language  with  respect  to  the  Father  would  be  as  prop- 
er as  in  respect  to  the  Son. 

By  the  form  of  God,  we  may  understand  the  same  as 
the  similitude  or  image  of  God — Christ  is  declared  to  be 
*'  the  image  of  the  invisible  God*' — "  the  express  image  of 
his  Person."  But  does  not  every  body  know  that  a  Persou 
and  the  image  of  his  Person  are  distinct  objects  ?  and  that 
It  is  impossible  that  any  Person  should  be  the  image  of  him- 
self ?  Seth  was  the  image  of  Adam  ;  but  he  was  not  Adam, 
nor  was  Adam  and  Seth  the  same  Being. — It  is,  however, 
true,  that  an  image  often  bears  the  name  of  the  Person  rep- 
resented. So  Christ,  -by  the  pleasure  of  God,  often  bears 
the  Divine  Names  of  his  Father. 

If,  by  the  term  God,  be  intended  three  Persons,  as  Mr. 
Jones  suggests,  then  for  Christ  to  be  in  the  form  ofGody 
he  must  be  in  the  form  of  three  Persons. 

The  terms,  also,  equal  with  God^  plainly  import  that 
Christ  is  a  Person  distinct  from  God.  Two  Persons  are 
here  compared  together,  one  of  them  is  God,  the  other  is 
the  SofJ  of  God  ;  and  of  the  Son  it  is  asserted,  in  some 
sense,  that  he  is  equal  with  God,  If  I  were  to  say  that 
Solomon  thought  it  no  robbery  to  be  equal  with  David, 
would  you  suppose  that  I  meant  to  assert  that  Solomon  and 
David  were  but  one  and  the  same  Being  ?* 

Besides,  in  the  connexion  of  the  text,  the  Son  is  repre- 
sented as  a  Being  so  distinct  from  God,  that  he  could  obey 
and  die^ '  and  after  that  be  exalted  by  God^  and  have  a  name 
given  him,  which  is  above  every  name.  Now,  Sir,  if  there 
be  no  more  Gods  than  one,  as  you  readily  admit,  and  if 
Christ  be  personally  the  self-existent  God,  I  wish  to  be  in- 
formed by  what  God  Christ  was  exalted  P  Or,  on  what 
ground  it  can  be  said  that  God  exalted  him  ? 

May  I  not  safely  conclude,  that  this  text  is  so  far  from 
Supporting  the  Athanasian  doctrine,  that  it  fairly  implies 
that  God  is  only  one  Person,  and  that  Christ  is  truly  God's 
Son? 


*  Since  writing  these  remarks,  1  examined  Dr.  Doddridge's 
Fainily  Expositor.  The  phrase  *'  equal  with  God,'*  he  does  not 
admit  as  a  correct  translation.  According  to  him,  the  text  should 
be  read,  '*  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  as  God.'*  The  Greek 
phrase  is  isa  Theo  ;  and  the  Doctor  says,  "  the  proper  Greek 
phrase  for  equal  nvith  God,  is  ison  to  Theo."  And  these  are  the 
words  used  by  John,  in  stating  the  accusation  of  the  Jews  against 
♦Chrioi— John  v.  18,  "  making  hijnself  ejrwa/ 7i'/?A  QodL,'* 


*> 


60  On  the  red!  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Chrtsii 

My  next  business  will  be  to  sbow  how  the  passage  of 
Scripture,  which  has  been  quoted,  supports  the  doctrine 
that  the  Son  of  God  became  Man,  by  becoming  the  soul 
of  a  human  body. 

Th^•  p-^ssage  teaches  us,  that  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  in 
the  FORM  OF  God,  made  himsklf  of  no  reputation,  and 
took  on  HIM  thitform  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men ^  and  was  found  mjashion  ns  a  man. 

Be  pleasf'd.  Sir,  to  observe  the  correspondence  between 
this  representation  and  other  passages  of  Scripture — "  The 
Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us" — "  God 
sending  his  own  Son  in  the  lik(  ness  of  sinful  flesh" — '"-In  all 
things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren"— 
*'  Forasmuch  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  fii  sh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  took  part  of  the  same."  Does  not 
the  natural  import  of  all  these  passages,  whether  severally 
or  collectively  considered,  convey  the  idea  that  the  Son  of 
God  became  Man  b\  becoming  the  soul  of  a  human  body  ? 
Can  you  perceive  the  least  intimation  in  any  of  these  pas- 
sages, of  any  soul  but  that  of  the  Son  of  God  ? 

Had  it  been  recorded  in  the  Bible,  that  satan,  or  the 
Ange:  Gabriel,  for  a  number  of  years,  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men,  and  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  what 
idea  would  such  a  representation  excite  in  your  mind  ?  If 
satan  were  the  Person,  should  you  imagine  that  he  dwelt 
in  a  Man  ?  or,  that  he  merely  assumed  a  human  body  ? 

You  will  be  pleased  to  observe,  that  the  text  does  not 
say  that  the  Son  of  God  was  united  to  a  Man;  but  was 
**  made  in  the  likeness  ofmen^^ — It  does  not  say  the  Son  of 
God  was  found  in  a  man^  but  was  '•'•found  in  fashion  as  a 
Man^"*  And  what  can  be  intended  by  an  unembodied 
spirit's  being  made  in  the  likeness  ofmen^  but  his  becoming 
in  an  embodied  state  t  And  what  is  it  to  be  found  mfash^* 
ton  as  a  man^  but  to  be  found  like  a  man  with  soul  and  body 
imited  t  If  it  were  common  among  mtn  to  have  two  intel- 
ligent^spirits  united  to  one  body,  then  might  the  Son  of  God 
be  made  in  the  likeness  of  men ^  by  ''  taking  to  himself  a  true 
body  and  reasonable  soul."  But  if  it  has  never  been  known 
among  men  that  two  intelligent  spirts  were  united  to  one 
body,  then  for  the  Son  of  God  to  be  made  in  the  likeness  of 
vien^  and  to  be  found  in  fashion  as  a  Man^  he  must  become 
the  soul  of  a  human  bodv.  And  I  would  propose  it  lor 
your  most  serious  consideration,  whether  the  Athanasian 


iBn  the  real  Dhinzty  and  Glory  of  Christ,  81 

theory,  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  does  not  come 
nearer  to  the  scriptural  view  of  possession^  than  it  does  to 
the  scriptural  view  of  incarnation^  excepting  so  far  as  re- 
gards the  character  of  the  Person  ? 

I  do  not.  Sir,  mention  this  comparison  with  any  view  to 
make  light  of  the  subject,  or  to  ridicule  your  theory  ;  but 
to  enforce  an  examination.  And  is  there  not  much  more 
evidence,  that,  in  a  case  of  possession^  satan  took  '*  to  him- 
self a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  sou  ,"  than  that  Christ  didl 
so  by  incarnation  P  Besides,  in  a  case  of  possession^  it  is 
easy  to  conceive  that  the  Man  might  suffer,  and  even  die, 
and  yet  satan  be  not  at  all  affected  by  the  sufferings  andt  ^ 
death  of  the  Man  :  and  just  so  you  suppose  that  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  might  suffer  and  die  without  any  pain  to  the 
Son  of  God. 

In  respect  to  what  constitutes  a  Man  in  the  present  state, 
what  more  do  we  know  than  this,  that  an  intelligent  spirit 
is  united  to  a  human  body,  so  as  to  constitute  one  Person  ? 
While  one  affirms  that  the  souls  of  men  are  properly  pro- 
duced by  ordinary  generation,  the  same  as  the  body,  an- 
other will  affirm  that  the  soul  or  spirit  is  the  immediate 
work  of  God,  and  united  to  the  body  in  a  state  of  embryo. 
And  these  t  vo,  perhaps,  will  unite  in  confidently  affirm- 
ing, that  Christ  cou  d,  with  no  propriety,  be  called  a  Man, 
if  his  soul  had  pre-existed  as  the  Son  of  God.  But  if  at 
true  body  and  reasonable  soul  united,  will  constitute  a  man, 
is  it  not  unsafe  for  us  to  affirm  that  the  Son  of  God  could 
not  become  a  Man  by  becoming  the  rational  soul  of  a  hw 
man  body  P 

If  I  have  not  misunderstood  him.  Dr.  Emmons  differs 
from  Dr.  Hopkins,  and  supposes  that  the  souls  of  men  are 
not  propagated  like  their  bodies  ;  but  are  the  immediate 
work  of  God,  and  by  him  united  to  bodies.  To  this  hy- 
pothesis I  do  not  object  ;  I  am  ignorant  on  the  subject* 
But  I  do  not  see  how  the  Doctor,  or  any  who  agree  with 
him,  can  reasonably  say  that,  on  my  hypothesis,  Mary 
was  not  properly  the  mother  of  a  son.  For  if  the  Son  of 
God  were  united  to  a  body  in  the  womb  of  Mary,  and  bom 
of  her,  he  was,  according  to  Dr,  Emmons'  hypothesis,  as 
truly  the  son  of  Mary,  as  Seth  was  the  son  of  Eve.  And  it 
is  just  as  conceivable  that  a  pre-existent  spirit  should  be 
united  to  an  infant  body,  as  a  spirit  formed  at  the  very  mo- 
ment of  union. 


62  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ 

The  portion  of  Scripture,  which  we  have  under  consid- 
eration, fairly  supports  another  idea  upon  which  I  have  in- 
sisted, viz.  That  the  S^n  of  God  was  ijhe  real  sufferer  on 
the  cross.  He  who  had  been  m  the  form  of  God^  when 
found  m  fashion  as  a  Man,  humbled  himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 

On  your  hypothesis,  the  Son  of  God  was  truly  and  per- 
sonally the  self-existent  God.     I   ask   then.  Did  the  self- 
existent  God  bfcome  obedient  unto  death,  eve?!  the  death  of 
the  cross  P   If  he  did,  who  supported  the  universe  during 
that  event  ?     And  who  raised  htm  from  the  deod  P 

But  you  will  say,  that  it  was  the  Man  Jesus,  to  whom 
the  Son  was  united,  who  became  obedient  unto  death.  But 
does  the  Apostle  say  any  such  thing  ?  The  obedience  unto 
death  he  attributes  to  the  self-same  Intelligence  who  had 
been  in  the  form  of  God.  For  the  So  .  of  God  to  suffer^ 
and  for  a  Man  to  suffer  to  whom  the  Son  was  united,  are 
as  distinct  ideas  as  any  two  which  can  be  named.  And 
what  trace  of  the  latter  idea  do  you  find  in  the  Apostle's 
description  \ 

The  idea,  that  it  was  truly  the  Son  of  God  who  obeyed^ 
suffered,  and  died,  and  not  another  intelligent  being  to 
whom  he  was  united,  is  plainly  asserted  in  other  passages 
of  Scripture — "  Though  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience 
by  the  things  which  he  suffered" — "  Who  his  own  self 
bare  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree" — "  We  were  re- 
conciled to  God,  by  the  death  of  his  Son''^ — "  But  now  once 
in  the  end  of  the  world  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin 
by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  ^ 

A -vast  multitude  of  texts  of  similar  import  might  be  pro- 
duced. And  can  you,  Sir,  pretend  that  these  texts  do  not 
support  the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  did  really 
suffer  ?  Can  you  find  any  language  which  could  more  fair- 
ly or  more  fully  express  the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
the  real  sufferer  P  And  shall  we  still  be  told  that  this  same 
Son  was  personally  the  self-existent  God,  and  incapable  of 
death  or  suffering  P 

I  cannot.  Sir,  but  feel  most  deeply  interested,  when  I 
happen  to  touch  on  this  point  ;  and  I  hardly  know  when, 
where,  or  how  to  dismiss  it.  It  cannot  be  admitted,  that 
God  is  chargeable  with  any  imposition  on  mankind.  And 
yet,  what,  short  of  an  imposition,  would  it  be  for  him  to 
pretend  that  h^  has  so  loved  the  world  as  to  give  his  okly 


t)n  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  &3 

BEGOTTEN  Son  to  suffer  an  ignominious  death  for  our  re- 
demption, if  at  the  same  time  this  Son  was  so  spired^  as 
your  theory  implies  ?  So  spared^  that  all  the  sufferings  of 
the  cross  were  endured  by  a  Man  to  whom  the  Son  was 
united  ;  and  the  Son  hmself  as  free  from  pain  and  death 
as  though  there  were  no  such  thing  as  suffering  and  death 
in  the  universe.  No  possible  union  between  the  Son  of 
God  and  a  Man  could  render  it  proper  to  call  the  sufferings 
and  death  of  the  Man  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Son^ 
if  it  be  true  that  the  Son  did  not  suffer  nor  die.  And  on 
this  hypothesis,  the  sufferings  of  the  Man  might  as  well  be 
called  the  sufferings  of  G  br'iel^  or  the  sufferings  of  God  the 
Father^  as  the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God.  Must  the  sun 
be  darkened,  must  the  rocks  be  rent,  must  the  earth  quake, 
and  nature  be  thrown  into  convulsions,  while  the  Son  of 
God  suffers  and  dies  on  the  cross  ?  Must  the  Angels  show 
so  deep  an  interest  in  thht  scene,  and  must  all  the  world  be 
called  on  to  behold  with  wonder  and  astonishment,  the 
height,  and  depth,  the  length,  and  the  breadth,  of  the  love 
of  God,  as  displayed  in  that  event  ?  Must  all  the  redeem- 
ed of  the  Lord  unite  in  songs  of  everlasting  praise  to  the 
So^  ofGoD^  because  he  hvith  loved  them  and  redeemed  them 
to  God  by  his  own  blood  t  And  can  it,after  all,  be  made 
to  appear  that  the  Son  of  God  suffered  not  at  all,  unless  it 
were  by  proxy  or  substitute  P 

May  it  not.  Sir,  be  fairly  inferred  from  your  theory,  that 
instead  of  the  Son  of  God's  dying  for  us,  that  the  Man 
Christ  di&d  for  the  Son  of  God  P  If  the  Son  of  God  had 
covenanted  with  the  Father  to  lay  down  his  life  for  us,  but 
instead  of  bearing  the  suffering  himself,  united  himself  to 
another  intelligent  being,  and  caused  the  sufferings  wholly 
to  fall  on  that  Man,  did  not  the  Man  die  for  him  P  And 
to  whom.  Sir,  are  we  indebted  for  the  redemption  pur- 
chased on  the  cross  ?  To  the  real  sufferer^  or  to  the  one 
who  "  suffered  not  in  the  least  ?"  To  the  Man  Jesus^  or 
to  the  Son  of  God  ? 

Most  gladly,  Sir,  would  I  recall  every  syllable  I  ever  ut- 
tered in  support  of  a  theory  so  opposite  to  the  natural  im- 
port of  Scripture  language,  so  degrading  to  the  love  of  God, 
and  so  dishonorary  to  the  Lord  of  glort. 

There  is  another  point  stated  in  the  passage,  viz.  that 
the  high  official  character  which  the  Son  of  God  sustains  as- 
Lord  of  the  universe,  is  the  result  of  God'^s  pleasure^  and 


84  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

not  any  thing  which  the  Son  possessed  as  a  self- ex  I  stent 
or  independtnt  Being.  Having  stated  the  abasement  of 
the  Son,  his  obedience  unto  death,  the  Apostle  says, 

"Wherefore  GoD  hath  highly  exalted  hi M^2md  given  him 
a  name  which  is  above  every  name  ;  that  at  the  name  of 
Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father.'* 

Is  it,  Sir,  in  the  power  of  language  to  give  a  more  full 
idea  of  a  constituted  character,  or  of  delegated 
AUTHORITY,  than  is  given  in  these  words  of  the  Apostle  ? 
Is  not  the  representation  perfect  and  unequivocal^  that  the 
same  Being  who  was  once  in  the  form  of  God,  then  in 
fashion  as  a  man^  who  humbled  himself  and  became  obedi- 
ent unto  death,  was,  in  consequence  of  that  abasement,  ex- 
alted by  the  self-existent  God,  to  supreme  and  universal 
dominion  ?  Did  not  the  Apostle  menn  to  be  understood  as 
TCi.'^rkL^tXiKWi^^  extraordinary  and  real  changes  of  condition 
in  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God  ?  Did  he  not  mean  to  rep- 
resent that  the  first  change  of  condition  was  a  voluntary 
act  on  the  part  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  he  voluntarily  descend- 
ed from  the  form  of  God  to  the  form  of  a  servant^  and 
voluntarilv  became  obedient  unto  death  I  If  this  change 
of  condition  was  not  real  and  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the 
Son  of  God,  whv  is  he  exhibited  as  an  example  of  humili^ 
ty,  condescension,  and  benevolence  ?  Why  are  we  requir- 
ed to  let  this  mind  be  in  us  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  ? 
But  if  the  Son  of  God  was  realhj  the  subject  of  this  change 
of  condition,  if  he  did  really  and  truly  suffer  and  die^  can 
he  be  the  Son  of  God  in  your  sense  of  the  terms  ?  In  other 
words,  can  he  be  the  sflf-existent  God  ? 

In  regard  to  the  second  great  change  of  condition — Did 
not  the  Apostle  mean  to  represent,  that  for  the  suffering  of 
deaths  the  Son  of  God  was  rewarded  by  his  Father  with 
transcendent  dignity  and  glory  ?  Did  he  not  mean  to  rep« 
resent,  that  the  very  identical  intelligent  Being,  who  hung 
in  agony,  who  prayed,  who  bled  and  died  On  the  cioss,  was 
exalted  by  God  as  Lord  of  all  t  But  if  the  real sifferer  on 
the  cross  ^  as  thus  exalted  by  God,  then,  according  to  your 
own  views,  he  could  not  be  the  self-existent  God  ;  for  you 
cannot  admit  that  a  self-existent  Person  may  be  either  the 


I 


Off  the  real  DiviniiT/  and  Glorij  of^hrhu  SSf 

subject  of  deaths  or  of  delegated  authority.  The  self-exist- 
ent God  could  no  more  be  raised  to  the  throne  of  the  uni- 
verse, than  he  could  suffer  death  on  the  cross. 

As  Athanasian  writers  have  found  it  necessary,  or  con- 
venient, on  their  theory,  to  attribute  all  that  is  said  of  the 
obedience,  the  suffering  and  death,  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  the 
human  nature,  or  the  man  Jesus,  to  whom  they  suppose  the 
Son  of  God  was  united  ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  they  have 
found  it  convenient,  or  necessary,  to  attribute  what  is  stated 
in  the  Scriptures  respecting  the  exaltation  of  the  S^n  of 
God,  to  the  same  Man  or  human  nature.  As  they  have 
perceived  that  it  must  be  improper  to  attribute  real  abase' 
ment,  suffering,  and  death,  to  the  self-existent  God,  so  it 
appears  they  have  perceived  that  it  is  equally  improper  to 
suppose  a  self-existent  Person  should  be  capable  oi  deriving 
or  receiving  either  Jichiess  or  authority  from  any  other  Per- 
son. And  as  they  have  supposed  the  P^-rson  who  is  called 
the  Son  of  God,  to  be  personally  the  self-existent  God,  so 
they  have  found  it  necessary  to  the  support  of  that  theory 
to  attach  to  this  Person  a  proper  IVIan,  capable  of  obed  ence, 
suffering,  and  death,  and  also  of  receiving  communicated 
Julness  and  authority. 

According  to  Mr.  Jones,  and  other  writers,  it  was  the 
Man  Jesus,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Son  or  God,  who 
received  the  Spirit  without  measure — to  the  Man  was 
given  the  name  which  is  above  every  name — it  viras  the 
Man  who  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the 
quick  and  the  dead — and  the  Man  who  was  anointed  with 
the  oil  of  gladness  above  his  fellows. 

In  view  of  these  representations,  I  would  propose  to  your 
consideration  the  following  inquiries  : — 

1.  If  the  Son  of  God  were  self-existent  and  independent, 
and  the  Man  or  human  nature  but  an  appendage  to  a  self- 
existent  Person,  what  occasion  could  there  be  of  any  com- 
munications from  the  Father  to  that  Man  or  human  nature  ? 
If,  as  a  Son,  that  Person  were  the  independent  God,  as  a 
Person  he  possessed  independent  fulness  and  authority  ; 
and  no  addition  or  accession  to  his  fulness  or  authority 
could  possibly  be  made  by  the  Father. 

2.  If  the  Son  of  God,  as  such,  were  possessed  of  inde- 
pendent and  infinite  fulness  and  authority,  and  in  addition 
to  this  the  Father  gave  the  human  nature  of  the  Son  the 
Spirit  without  measure,  and  all  power  in  heaven  and  earthy 


86  On  the  real  Dvomity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

will  it  not  appear  that  the  same  Person  was  possessed,  in  a 
two-fold  sense,  of  infinite  fu'ness  and  authority  ? 

3.  If  the  Son  of  God  were  united  tb  a  proper  Man,  and 
that  Man,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Son  of  God,  was  en- 
dued by  the  Father  with  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 
and  invested  vvith  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth,  what  is 
the  cffce  or  business  of  your  supposed  second  self-existent 
Person  ?  It  is  believed,  Sir,  that  you  cannot  make  it  ap- 
pear that  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  received  any  support^  ful- 
ness^ or  authority^  or  even  benejit  from  any  Divine  Per* 
son  but  the  Father — As  a  derived  intelligence^  all  he  re-* 
ceived  was  from  the  Father,     But, 

4.  If  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  may  be  the  recipient  of  the  Spirit 
without  measure^  of  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead;  if  he 
may  be  exalted  with  God's  own  right  hand,  and  made  a 
Prince  and  a  Savior,  and  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and 
the  dead  ;  I  wou'd  ask  what  evidence  you  have  of  the  ex^ 
istence  of  a  second  Person  in  union  with  the  Godhead,  dis- 
tinct from  the  soul  of  that  Man  who  was  the  Lord  irom 
heaven  ? 

5.  If  it  was  in  fact  the  Man  Jesus  Christ  who  was  the 
subject  of  all  the  abasement^  sufferings  and  deaths  which 
was  endured  for  our  sakeS  j  and  f  it  was  the  Man  who  has 
been  the  subject  ol  all  the  exa  tation  which  is  in  the  Scrip* 
tures  attributed  to  the  Son  of  God  ;  is  there  not  abundant 
evidence  that  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  and  the  Son  of  God  are 
identically  the  same  intelligent  Being?  And  that  the  Son 
of  God  became  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  by  becoming  the  soul 
of  a  human  body  ? 

You  may  think,  Sir,  that  I  ought  to  notice  that  all  Atha- 
nasian  writers  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Jones,  that  it  was  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  or  the  Man  merely,  who  is  repre- 
sented as  receiving  fulness  and  authority  from  the  Father. 
I  am  sensible,  indeed,  that  there  is  another  opinion  ad- 
vanced by  some  writers  of  great  respectability  ;  and  it  is 
to  me  a  wiatter  of  regret,  that  I  have  occasion  to  bring  it 
into  view  :  for,  if  it  be  possible,  it  is  to  me  more  inconsist- 
ent than  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Jones. — The  opinion  referred 
to  is  of  this  import,  1  hat  the  representations  in  Scripture, 
respecting  the  derived  fulness  and  authority  of  the  Son,  re- 
sult from  the  covenant  of  redemption,  in  which  a  mutual 
agreement  was  entered  into  by  the  Three  self  existent  ^xid 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  Hf 

to-eternal  Persons,  respecting  the  part  which  each  should) 
perform  in  the  work  of  redemption. 

Dr.  Hopkins  gives  the  following  view  of  these  covenant 
transactions  : — 

"  The  second  Person  was  engaged  to  become  incarnate, 
to  do  and  to  suffer  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  salvation 
of  men.  The  Father  promised,  that  on  his  consenting  to 
take  upon  him  the  character  and  work  of  a  Mediator  and 
Redeemer,  he  should  be  every  way  furnished  and  assisted 
to  go  through  with  the  work  ;  that  he  should  have  power 
to  save  an  elect  number  of  mankind,  and  form  a  Church 
and  Kingdom  most  perfect  and  glorious  :  In  order  to  ac- 
complish this,  all  things,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earthy 
should  be  given  to  him,  till  the  work  of  redemption  is 
completed." 

The  Doctor  observes  again, 

*'  The  blessed  Trinity,  in  the  one  God,  may  be  consid- 
ered as  a  most  exalted,  happy,  and  glorious  society  oip 
family,  uniting  in  the  plan  of  Divine  operations,  especially 
an  accomplishing  the  work  of  redemption.  In  this,  each 
one  has  his  part  to  perform,  according  to  a  most  wise, 
mutual  regulation  or  agreement,  which  may  be  called  a 
covenant.-  In  performing  these  several  parts  of  this  work,, 
one  acts  as  superior^  and  another  as  inferior  ;  or  one  acts 
•under  another^  and  by  his  authority,  as  appointed  or  sent 
by  him.  This,  by  Divines,  is  called  the  economy  of  the 
work  of  Redemption.  Ac  ording  to  this  economy,  the 
Son,  the  Redeemer,  acts  under  the  Father,  and  by  his  will 
and  appointment,  and  in  this  respect  takes  an  inferior  part ; 
and  in  this  sense  he  is  supposed  to  speak,  when  he  says, 
the  Father  is  greater  than  /." 

I  confess  to  you.  Sir,  that  I  cannot  but  be  amazed  and 
grieved  to  find  such  representations  in  the  writings  of  so 
great  and  so  good  a  man  as  Dr.  Hopkins.  I  am  amazed, 
because  I  must  suppose  that  he  was  so  blinded  by  theory 
as  not  to  pay  due  attention  to  the  import  of  what  he  wrote* 
And  I  am  grieved,  that  a  man  so  eminent  should  do  so 
much  to  expose  Christianity  to  the  ridicule  of  unbelievers* 

*'  A  glorious  society  or  fa?nily  /" — A  family  of  what  I 
Not  of  Men  ;  not  of  Angels,  What  then  t  A  family  of. 
selfeo^istent  and  independent  Persons^  each  of  whom,  as  a 
distinct  Person^  the  Doctor  supposed  to  be  God.  And  if 
we  pay  any  regard  to  the  natural  import  of  language,  what 


88  On  the  real  Divinity  and  blory  ofChrhU 

are  we  to  denominate  this  family,  short  of  a  family  of  Gods  ? 
I  verv  well  know  that  the  Doctor  denied  the  idea  of  a  plu- 
ralitv  of  Gods  ;  nor  would  I  intimate  the  contrary  ;  and  I 
jnnst  sincerely  wish  that  all  his  reasonings  and  representa- 
tions had  been  consistent  with  that  denial.  But,  far  from 
this,  he  has  not  only  undertaken  to  prove  that  each  of  these 
self-existent  Persons  is  God,  hut  in  the  very  passages  un- 
der consideration  he  represents  these  Persons  as  properly 
distinct  Beings^  as  distinct  Beings  as  any  three  Angels  in 
heaven.  They  can  enter  into  covenant  with  each  other- 
each  can  hav^e  a  distinct  part  assigned  him— one  can  be  su" 
perior^  and  another  act  under  him^  or  by  his  order — one 
can  send  the  other  on  the  most  important  business ;  and 
what  more  than  all  this,  I  beseech  you,  would  be  requisite 
to  constitute  them  three  as  distinct  Beings  as  Peter,  James, 
and  John. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  of  all  these  representations 
are  the  engagements  of  the  Father  to  the  Son — "  The  Fa- 
ther promised,  that  on  his  consenting  to  take  upon  him  the 
character  and  work  of  a  Mediatoi  and  Redeemer,  he  should 
be  everv  w2iy  furnished  and  assisted  to  go  through  the 
w^ork  ;  that  he  should  have  power  to  save  an  elect  number 
of  mankinrl — In  order  to  accomplish  this,  all  things^  all 
power  in  heaven  and  earthy  should  be  given  to  him,  until 
redemption  is  completed." 

Be  pleased.  Sir,  to  keep  in  mind,  that  the  Doctor  was 
writing  about  two  self-existent,  independent,  and  all-suf- 
ficient Persons.  Was  it  possible  that  he  should  suppose, 
that  an  independent  Person  ever  became  dependent  ?  Did 
the  independent  God  ever  cease  for  a  moment  to  be  inde- 
pendent f  If  the  supposed  self-existent  Son  did  not  become 
a  dependent  agent  by  incarnation^  what  could  be  the  ground 
or  occasion  of  the  Father's  promises  that  he  should  h^ifur* 
nished  and  assisted,  and  have  all  things^  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth,  given  to  him  ?  I  am  not.  Sir,  meaning  to  de- 
ny, or  to  doubt,  the  fact  respecting  the  existence  of  these 
promises  of  the  Father  to  the  Son.  The  Doctor  has  prov- 
ed the  existence  of  these  promises  oi  assistance  2iXid>.  support 
in  the  connexion  of  the  paragraphs  quoted.  But  my  ques- 
tion is.  Why  were  these  promises  made  f  They  were  either 
needful,  or  they  were  not.  To  say  they  were  made,  and 
yet  not  needful,  would  be  imputing  to  God  a  kind  of  trifling 
which  would  be  de^jrading  to  a  wise  and  good  man.      But 


Un  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrhf.  89 

if  they  were  needful^  it  must  be  on  one  or  other  of  these 
grounds,  riz.  either  the  Son  was  originally  dependent  on 
the  Father,  or  he  became  dependent  by  incarnation.  That 
he  was  origina'ly  dependent,  you  and  the  Doctor  positive- 
ly deny.  What  ground  then  have  you  left  but  this,  that  a 
self-existent  and  independent  Person  became  dependent  by 
incarnation  ?  I  see  no  possible  ground  but  this  which  you 
can  take,  unless  you  prefer  to  reduce  the  solemn  transac- 
tions in  the  covenant  of  redemption  to  a  mere  show. 

But  can  you,  Sir,  believe  that  an  independent  Person 
ever  became  dependent  ?  If  you  maintain  this  position,  it 
must  be  at  the  expense  of  another  which  you  have  wished 
to  maintatn,  viz.  the  absolute  immutability  of  the  Son  of 
God. 

*:  For  an  independent  Person  to  become  dependent^  is,  I 
suspect,  as  great  a  change  as  was  ever  experienced  by  any 
creature  ;  and  as  great  as  for  a  Man  to  be  changed  from. 
ENTITY  to  NON-ENTITY.  But  this  is  not  all— If  you  sup- 
port the  hypothesis  that  the  Son  became  dependent  by 
incarnation^  you  must  do  it  at  the  expense  of  the  imrnuta- 
^  hility  of  the  Godhead,  If  it  be,  as  you  suppose,  that  the 
Godhead  consists  of  three  Persons,  and  one  of  those  Per- 
sons has  become  a  dependent  agent,  the  Godhead  itsel£ 
must  have  been  changed  by  the  change  in  one  of  its  Per- 
sons. It  is  no  longer  a  Godhead  of  tlirte  independent 
Persons* 

Will  you.  Sir,  think  of  evading  these  objections,  or 
solving  these  difficulties,  by  saying  that  the  Son  did  not 
really  become  dependent,  but  only  apparently^  by  becom- 
ing united  to  a  dependent^  nature  f  This,  my  friend,  \^  ill 
increase  the  difficulties,  by  representing  the  part  acted  by 
the  Son  as  farcical,  as  well  -as  the  part  acted  by  the  Father. 
On  this  hypothesis,  the  Son  would  put  on  the  appGirance. 
of  needing  his  Father's  support,  when  in  fact  he  did  not 
need  it — he  would  put  on  the  appearance  of  obeying  the 
Father,  when  in  fact  he  did  not  obey  ;  and  of  sii^ering  smd 
dyingy  when  in  fact  he  did  neither  die  nor  suffer. 

Will  you  say  that  the  engagements  of  the  Father  to  the 
Son  were  of  thife  tenor,  that  he  would  support  the  human, 
nature  to  which  the  Son  should  be  united  ?  If  so,  I  ask 
what  need  had  the  Son  of  this  ?  Was  he  not  personally 
sufficient  for  the  support  of  his  human  nature  ?  Again,  I 
ask,  If  the  engagements  of  the  Father  to  the  Son  were,  that 

M 


90  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChri»t» 

he  would  support  the  3Ian  to  whom  the  Son  should  b« 
united,  what  part  had  the  Son  to  perform?  Was  it  not 
simply  this,  that  he  should  appear  to  beiome  dependt-nt  b)'- 
becoming  united  to  the  Man^  and  the  Father  wouldyz/r/«^A, 
assist^-and  enable  the  Man  to  do  the  whole  business  of  obey- 
inrr  aiid  suffering  P  And  is  this,  Sir,  the  ground  of  our 
obligations  to  the  Son  of  God  ?  Is  this  the  ground  on 
which  th<^  redeemed  of  the  Lord  sing  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  zvas  slain  .^" 

It  is.  Sir,  painful  to  me  thus  to  expose  the  theory  I  once 
maintained,  or  attempted  to  maintain,  and  the  theory 
which  has  been  advocated  by  some  of  the  greatest  and  best 
of  men.  But  I  view  it  to  be  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  God, 
and  to  his  Son  who  has  given  himself  for  us.  /\.nd  while 
I  sincerely  lament  that  the  representations  of  Dr.  Hopkins, 
on  which  I  have  remarked,  are  to  be  found  in  the  writings 
of  a  man  so  justly  esteemed,  it  affords  me  pbundant  joy 
that  the  Bible  itself  is  not  chargeable  with  such  inconsistent 
representations. 

As  I  understand  the  Scriptures,  the  promises  of  the  Fa- 
ther were  made  to  one  who  was  in  truth  and  reality  the 
Son  of  God — to  one  who  ever  was  dependent  on  the  Fathtr, 
who  ttvtv  felt  his  dependence,  and  was  ever  willing  to  ac* 
knoiuledge  it — one  who  could  pray  with  propriety  and  sin- 
cerity while  in  the  flesh  ;  and  in  view  of  his  dependence^ 
in  view  of  the  covenant  of  redemption^  and  in  view  of  the 
sufferings  he  was  about  to  endure,  he  could  lift  up  his  eyes 
to  heaven  and  say,  "  Father,  the  hour  is  come,  glorify 
THY  Son,  that  thy  Son  may  also  glorify  thee  ;  as  thou 
hast  GIVEN  niM  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give 
eternal  life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him  :  And  this 
is  life  eternal,  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent,  I  have  glorified 
thee  on  the  earth  ;  I  have  finished  the  work  which  thou 
gavest  me  to  do.  And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me 
tuith  thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  zvasJ*^ 

To  a  Son  who  could,  in  sincerity,  make  such  a  prayer, 
the  Father  might  with  perfect  propriety  and  sincerity  make 
promises  of  assistance^  of  support^  of  power  ^  and  exaltation. 
On  this  ground,  the  covenant  transactions  between  the  Fa- 
ther and  the  Son  may  appear  solemn  and  affecting  realities; 
and  likewise  aU  the  subsequent  proceedings  on  the  part  of 


J 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  91 

the  Father,  and  on  the  part  of  the  Son.  With  this  view, 
also,  agree  all  the  predj  tions  respecting  what  the  Son 
should  do  and  suffer  ;  all  the  promises  of  Divine  assistance 
and  support  ;  all  that  is  said  by  Christ  of  himself,  of  his 
dependence,  his  derived  fulness  and  authority  ;  and  all 
that  is  said  by  the  Apostles  respecting  the  fulness  of  the 
Go  Ihead  dwelling  in  him  ;  and  of  the  power  and  authority 
which  Christ  received  of  God  as  Savior^  Judge^  and  Lord 
of  all.  We  have  no  occasion  for  2C(\y  forced  or  unnatural 
construction  of  any  of  these  numerous  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture ;  nor  have  we  any  occasion  to  frame  and  invent  hy- 
potheses which  contradict  the  plain  import  of  Scripture  lan- 
guage, and  finally  involve  us  in  contradiction  and  ab- 
surdity. 

Is  it  not.  Sir,  a  truth,  that  the  personal  self  existence  of 
the  So^  of  "God  has  been  too  hastily  established  as  an  arti- 
cle of  Christian  faith  ? — established  as  an  article  of  such 
unquestion  hie  truth  and  infmte  importance^  that  every  op« 
posing  passage  of  Scripture  must  be  made  to  bend  to  it,  or 
bre  k  before  it  ?  And  that  too  wh  le  the  general  tenor  of 
Scripture  language  and  Scripture  representations  are,  ac- 
cording to  the  most  natural  import  of  words,  d  rectly  op- 
posed to  the  idea  ?  Yea,  with  a  view  to  glorify  Christ 
with  the  attributes  o^  personal  self -existence  and  independ- 
ence^ hav-e  not  hypothest  s  been  formed  which  imply  a  sac- 
rifice of  the  solemn  realities  of  the  covenant  of  red«emption, 
and  of  the  obedience  and  death  of  the  S^N  of  God  ?  And 
in  attempting  to  support  this  one  doctrine,  have  not  the 
plainest  and  most  simple  representations  of  Scripture,  and 
even  the  whole  Gospel  scheme,  been  involved  in  mystery 
and  obscurity  ?  Surely,  Sir,  before  we  allow  any  doctrine 
such  a  share  of  importance,  we  ought,  at  least,  seriously 
to  inquire  whether  it  be  founded  in  the  word  of  G^d. 

As  the  doctrine  of  the  personal  self-existence  of  the  Son 
of  God  has  long  been  a  popular  doctrine,  have  we  not  on 
that  ground  received  it  as  true,  and  made  it  our  business 
to  support  the  doctrine  before  we  examined  it  by  the  light 
of  God's  word  ?  And  instead  of  making  the  Scriptures  a 
STANDARD  by  which  to  measure  the  doctrine^  have  v^e  hot 
been  in  the  habit  of  making  the  doctrine  a  standard  by 
which  to  measure  the  Scriptures  P 

Will  you.  Sir,  still  urge  that  Christ  cannot  be  a  Divine 
Person  unless  he  be  self-existent  ?  By  what  authority^  or 
\ 


92  On  the  real  Dhinity  and  Glory  of  Christ* 

by  what  analogy,  will  you  be  able  to  support  such  an  ob^ec* 
tion  I  Nothing  more  was  necessary  to  constitute  Seth  a 
human  Person^  than  being  the  saw  of  ^  human  Person, 
And  if  God  be  a  Dhrne  Person^  his  ov;n  Son  must  be  a 
jphine  Person*  According  to  everv  analogy  in  nature,  to 
affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God's  own  Son  implies  that  he  is 
a  Person  truly  Divine. 


LETTER  VIL 

Thoughts  on  the   Majesty   of  the  Son  of  God ;  his  simple 
and  his  complex  character. 

REV   SIR, 

WE  may  view  Jesus  Christ  as  originally  the  Son  of  God, 
having  derived  his  existence  truly  from  the  Father.  Yet 
at  the  period  when  this  world  v  as  created,  the  Son,  as  a 
Son,  and  without  any  special  indwelling  of  the  Father,, 
might  possess  powers  far  transcending  all  human  concep- 
tion. Should  it  be  supposed,  that  at  his  first  existence  as 
the  Son  of  God,  he  was  but  an  infant  in  knowledge  and 
Tnight^  yet,  prior  to  the  f  reation  of  the  world,  he  might 
have  existed  a  portion  of  duration  equal  to  millions  of  such 
periods  as  that  from  the  commencement  of  time  to  the 
present  day.  If  then  we  should,  for  the  present,  set  aside 
the  consideration  of  his  having  derived  his  nature  and  ca- 
pacity from  God  as  a  Son  from  a  Father,  and  suppose  that 
he  possessed  no  greater  capacity  or  advantages  for  acquir- 
ing knowledge  than  were  possessed  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton, 
and  also  that  his  progress  in  knowledge  during  that  immense 
term  of  duration  was  in  exact  proportion  to  the  progress  of 
Newton  during  the  period  of  his  life,  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  at  the  time  of  creation,  would  be  as  far 
above  our  conceptions  as  the  heavens  ar^  higher  than  the 
earth. 

To  this  inconceivable  fund  of  knowledge  we  may  add 
all  which  would  naturally  result  from  his  derivmg  his  na- 
ture and  capacity  from  God  as  a  Son  from  a  Father  ;  and 
all  which  would  result  from  his  being  all  that  term  of  du- 
ration under  the  immediate  tuition  of  an  omniscient  Fa- 
ther, "  as  one  brought  up  with  him-y'*  a  Father  who  ''  lov- 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  95 

eth  the  Son,  and  shozvethh\m.  all  'hings  thathimself  doeth.'^ 
These  consldt  rations  might  be  allowed  to  increase  the  suni 
of  knowledge  ten  thousand  fold.  Let  it  further  be  adnnitted, 
that  the  strength  or  might  of  the  Son  increased  in  exact 
proportion  to  his  knowledge  ;  then,  by  his  own  natural 
sufficiency,  he  might,  at  the  time  of  creation,  have  been 
able  to  move  and  manage  such  a  globe  as  we  inhabit,  with 
as  much  ease  as  we  can  move  an  orange  or  ?ifoot-halL  And 
if  it  may  be  admitted,  that  the  real  or  influential  presence 
of  an  unembodied  spirit  may,  at  pleasure,  be  expanded  or 
extended  in  proportion  to  his  knowledge,  the  Son  of  God 
might  be  omnipresent  with  respect  to  every  portion  of  cre- 
ated existence. 

Such  amazing  majesty  we  may  rationally  suppose  the 
Son  of  God  possessed  prior  to  creation,  considered  simply 
as  the  Son  of  God.  But  this  inconceivable  greatness,  it 
appears,  was  notsuffi  ient  to  constitute  the  Son  the  Cr»- 
ATOR  without  the  addition  of  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  :' 
For  "  God  created  all  things  by  Jt-sus  Christ  ;"  and  for 
this  purpose,  as  well  as  others,  we  may  suppose  that  God 
dwelt  in  his  Son  by  his  own  infinite  fulness  or  all-sufficien- 
cy. By  this  indwelling  of  Divine  fu'ness,  the  Son  was 
constituted  all-sufficient,  but  not  independent.  The 
Father  in  him  did  the  work.  And  it  is  just  as  easy  to  con- 
ceive that  God  should  manifest  his  creative  sufficiency 
through  the  Son  as  a  Medium  of  display,  as  in  any  other 
possible  manner. 

But  by  the  indwelling  of  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  the 
Son  may  be  considered  as  possessing  a  complex  character. 
To  the  derived  existence  and  natural  fulness  of  the  Son,  is 
united  the  self-existent  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 

"When  the  Son  of  God  became  incarnate,  he  became  ^c?d?r 
for  our  sakes  ;  he  in  a  sense  began  his  existence  ane  v  :  he 
laid  aside  the  form  of  God^  and  became  the  Son  of  man  in 
an  infant  state.  By  becoming  incarnate,  it  appears  that 
the  Son  of  God  was,  for  a  time,  divested  not  only  of  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead^  but  of  his  own  natural  fulness  as  the 
Son  of  God  :  so  that  the  treasures  which  he  lost  by  incar- 
nation were  to  be  re-acquired  or  re-communicated.  And  on 
this  ground,  wc  may  account  for  what  is  said  of  his  in- 
creasing in  wisdom,  and  for  all  that  is  recorded  which 
'mplied  any  defect  in  his  knowledge. 


94;  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory-  of  Christ, 

What  has  been  published  and  circulated  through  this 
country,  of  the  Rev.  William  Tennant,  respecting  his  re- 
vival from  a  state  of  apparent  death,!  and  having  to  re-learn 
what  he  had  learned  before  his  supposed  decease,  may  in 
some  measure  illustrate  my  idea  of  what  was  the  conse- 
quence of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Now,  Sir,  if  the  Son  of  God  did  possess  such  a  state  of 
pre-existent  g  ory  and  dignity  as  has  been  described,  and 
from  that  state  did  voluntarily  consent  to  such  a  scene  of 
abasement  as  is  implied  in  his  incarnation^  st/Jfering^  and 
deaths  is  it  possible  for  us  to  conceive  of  greater  love  and 
condescension  than  has  been  displayed  in  opening  the  way 
for  our  salvation  ?  And  what  more  than  a  mere  show  of 
such  affecting  realities  does  your  theory  support  ?  It  is  iijy  . 
prevailing  expectation,  that  more  persons  will  reject  the 
theory  contained  in  these  Letters,  on  the  ground  of  the 
greatness  and  reality  of  the  abasement  implied  in  it,  than 
on  any  other  ground  whatever.  But  we  ought  not  to  for- 
get, that  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  of  the  real  abase- 
ment^  is  the  greatness  of  Divine  love  as  displayed  in  our 
redemption — If  the  degree  of  real  abdse?nent  was  small^  so 
small  was  the  display  of  Divine  love.  And  if  there  were 
only  a  show  of  the  abasement  of  the  Son  of  God,  there  was 
no  more  than  a  show  of  Divine  condescension  and  love. 

The  Son  of  God,  in  union  with  a  human  body,  was  tru- 
ly a  complex  object ;  in  which  two  natures  were  united  in 
one  Person*  He  possessed  Divine  nature  as  the  Son  ot 
God,  and  human  nature  as  the  Son  of  man.  Thus  the  Me- 
diator between  God  and  Men  was  a  Son  to  both  parties. 

But  the  character  of  Christ  in  his  incarnate  state,  was 
not  only  complex  by  reason  of  the  union  of  that  paturc 
•which  he  derived  from  God  as  a  Son,  with  that  which  he 
derived  as  the  Son  of  man  ;  but,  while  in  the  flesh,  he  was 
supernaturally  endued  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Father  or 
the  Holy  Spirit.  For  to  the  indwelling  of  the  Father  he 
ascribed  the  mighty  works  which  he  performed.  And  as 
God  dwelt  in  him  while  he  dwelt  in  the  flesh,  "  God  was. 
manifested  in  the  flesh." 

We  may  moreover  observe,  that  the  character  of  the 
Son  of  God  was  officially  complex.  As  the  son  of  a  King 
possesses  royal  dignity  by  royal  descent^  prior  to  the  con- 
sideration of  any  particular  office,  so  we  may  consider  the 
Son  of  God  as  possessing  Divine  dignity  by  Divifie  descent^ 


On  the  real  Dhinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,  Op 

ant-ecedently  to  his  being  invested  with  any  particular  office* 
But  when  he  was  invest*^  d  with  offices,  his  character  be- 
came complex  by  reason  of  his  offices.  And  as  his  offices 
were  numerous,  his  official  character  was  very  complex* 

On  the  ground  of  the  complex  character  of  Christ,  we 
may  rationally  account  for  the  numerous  names  and  titles 
which  are  g'ven  to  him  in  the  Scriptures.  This  extraor- 
dinary Person  is  called  The  Son  of  God,  The  First  Begot- 
ten, The  Only  Begotten  Son,  The  Heir  of  all  things.  The 
First-born  of  every  creature.  The  Branch,  The  Beginning 
of  the  creation  of  God,  A  Man,  The  Son  of  Man,  David^ 
The  Son  of  David,  The  Stem  of  Jesse,  The  Root  and  the 
Offspring  of  David,  The  bright  and  morning  Star,  The 
Angel  of  the  Lord,  The  Angel  of  God's  Presence,  The 
Messengei  of  the  Covenant,  The  Archangel,  Shi  oh,  Mi- 
chael, Messiah,  Wisdom,  The  Word  of  God,  Jesus  Christ, 
A  Prophet,  The  High  Priest,  King,  Lord,  King  of  kings, 
Lord  of  lords,  God^s  Servant,  The  Lamb  of  God,  The 
Amen,  The  faithful  and  true  Witness,  The  Alpha  and  Ome- 
ga, The  Sun  of  Righteousness,  The  Light  of  the  Wcrld, 
The  Bread  of  Life,  The  Chief  Corner  Stone,  The  Holy 
One  of  God,  The  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  Shepherd, 
Bridegroom,  Mediator,  Redeemer,  Savior,  Advocate,  Em- 
manuel, God,  The  Prince  of  Peace,  The  Image  of  the  in- 
visible God,  The  Lord  our  Righteousness. 

These  and  many  more  names  and  titles  are  given  to  the 
Son  of  God,  to  one  individual  Person.  Several  of  these 
names  may  be  of  the  same  or  nearly  the  same  impK)rt ;  yet 
such  a  diversity  of  ideas  are  naturally  suggested  by  these 
various  names,  that  if  there  be  any  propriety  in  their  ap- 
plication, they  must  denote  that  the  character  of  the  Person" 
was,  in  a  high  degree,  complex. .  For  while  it  is  admitted 
that  several  of  these  names  or  titles- may  be  classed  together,, 
as  importing  about  the  same  thing,  it  must  be  observed  of 
the  most  of  them,  that  each  contains  some  idea  distinct 
from  any  other^  And  between  some  of  these  titles  and 
others,  there  is  such  a  perfect  contrast,  as  can  be  account- 
ed for  on  no  other  ground  than  that  of  a  complex  character^ 
together  with  the  supposition  that  the  same  Person  has 
been  in  different  situations  and  conditions.  And  it  may 
be  presumed,  that  there  is  no  other  Person  in  the  universe, 
to  whom  all  these  names  and  titles  may  be  applied,  but  to 
one  who  is  trulv  the  Son  of  God* 


96  On  the  real  Dhinkt/  and  Ctory  of  Christ* 

They  cannot  be  applied  to  the  self-ex'stent  God  :  Foi* 
the  self-existent  God  cannot  be  the  Son  of  God,  nor  the 
servant  of  God— Nor  is  it  to  be  admitted,  that  the  self-ex- 
istent God  ever  bf  came  a  Man,  or  the  Son  of  man.  Nor 
can  the  self-existent  God  be  the  Angel  of  God. — Nor  can 
these  names  and  tit'es  be  properly  applied  to  such  a  Man^ 
as  yod,  and  the  Socinians,  suppose  the  M'^  Christ  Jesus  to 
be.  How  could  such  a  Man  be  God's  Only  Son,  his 
FiRST-BFGOTTEN  ?  How  coulcl  such  a  Man  have  been  the 
Angel  of  God,  the  Angel  of  his  Presence,  two  thousand 
years  before  he  had  any  existence  I 

To  pretend  to  account  for  these  various  names  and  titles, 
by  supposing  that  the  selt-existent  God  became  unitt  d  to  a 
proper  Man,  in  such  a  manner  that  the  two  imelligences  be- 
came one  Person^  is  only  to  involve  one  difficulty  to  get  rid 
of  another :  For  the  Scriptures  give  no  intimation  that 
Christ  is  two  intelligent  Bfings  in  one  Person  ;  and  the 
*  hypothesis  is  a  plain  contradiction  to  everv  analogy  with 
which  we  are  acquamted.  And  one  oA  equal  ground  with 
Dr.  Emmons  might  perhaps  say  of  this  hypothesis,  as  he 
has  said  of  the  doctrine  of  "  eterna  generation,"  that  t  is 
such  a  mystery  as  cannot  be  distinguished  from  a  real  ab^ 
surdity. 

But  if  we  suppose  Christ  to  be  truV  the  Son  of  God, 
then  every  title  and  name  given  to  him  in  the  Scriptures 
may  be  justified  by  Scripture  testimony  or  analogy.  His 
titles  of  Gofl^,  Man^  the  Son  of  Man^  will  perhaps  be  the 
most  difficult  to  account  for  and  reconcile.  But  the  plain 
Scripture  account  of  his  incarnation  will  readily  show  us 
"why  he  is  called  a  Man^  and  the  Son  of  Man,  And  though 
we  have  no  analogy  which  can  justify  calling  a  self-exist- 
ent Person  the  Son  of  God,  we  have  plain  analogies  to  jus- 
tify g  ving  the  Father's  names  and  titles  to  the  Son  o^ 
God. 

In  the  present  age,  it  is  the  delight  of  parents  to  give 
their  own  proper  names  to  their  children.  And  when  a 
father  sustains  any  honorable  office,  it  is  no  unusual  thing 
for  him  to  wish  that  his  son  may  be  advanced  to  the  same 
office  ;  and  we  have  already  noted,  that  it  is  in  the  power 
of  a  King  to  advance  his  son  to  the  highest  offices  in  the 
government  ;  and  that  it  is  not  an  unheard-of  thing,  that 
a  King  should  confer  on  his  own  son  his  own  royal  title. 
Besides,  so  far  as  we  can  learn  any  thing  from  Gc'^-'''  '»d- 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ.  9T 

dress  to  his  Son,  in  which  the  Son  is  caMed  God,  it  must 
appear  that  the  Son  possesses  this  title  by  the  Father's 
pleasure,  and  not  by  personal  self-existence. — See  Part  H. 
Letter  IV. 


LETTER  VIIL 

Divine  Honors  due  to  the  Son  of  God* 

ReV  sir, 

THAT  the  Son  of  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  object 
of  Divine  honors,  is  so  plain  from  the  Scriptures,  that 
it  seems  extraordinary  that  it  should  ever  have  been  denied 
by  any  one  who  has  admitted  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. — In  support  of  the  idea,  we  may  note  sever- 
al things — 

1.  We  have  express  declarations  of  the  will  of  God, 
*'  1  he  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  alljudg' 
merit  to  the  Son, that  all  men  should  honor  the  Son  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father."  This  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for 
vien  to  give  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God. — Angers 
have  their  warrant  also  ;  for  "  When  he  bringeth  in  his 
pNLY  BEGOTTEN  iuto  the  world,  he  saith.  Let  all  the  An- 
gels of  God  WORSHIP  HIM."— And  we  have  another  pas- 
sage which  amounts  to  a  wirrant  both  for  men  and.  An- 
gels :  "  Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
him  a  name  which  is  above  evtrry  name,  that  at  the  name 
OF  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow^  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth." 

2.  We  have  the  example  of  saints  on  earth  and  saints 
in  heaven.  In  respect  to  saints  nn  earth,  we  not  only  have 
many  individual  instances  recorded,  but  the  great  bodv  of 
Christians  in  the  apostolic  age  were  characterized  as  ''those 
who  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  fesusJ^  That  both  angels 
and  saints  in  gory  pay  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God, 
is  represented  by  John  in  the  account  he  gives  of  his  visions : 
*'  And  I  beheld,  and  I  heard  the  voi  e  of  many  angels 
round  about  the  throne,  and  the  beasts  and  the  elders  ;  and 
the  number  of  them  was  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand, 
and  thousands  of  thousands,  saying   with   a  loud  voice, 

N 


98  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrht, 

Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to  receive  povr-^ 
er,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  blessing  :  And  every  creature  which  is  in 
heaven,  and  on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such 
as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I,  saying. 
Blessings  and  ^o^ior,  and^/orz/,  2i\\d  power ^  be  unto  him 
that  sitteth  on  the  thro  le,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  forever 
and  ever." 

To  those  who  regard  the  Scriptures  as  of  Divine  authori- 
ty, the  things  which  have  already  been  noted  may  be  con- 
sidered as  suffi  lent  to  authorize  us  to  pay  Divine  honors 
to  the  Son  of  God  ;  even  if  we  should  be  una'ile  to  invest- 
igate the  grounds  of  the  Divine  directions,  and  of  the  ex- 
amples of  saints  and  ange's.  It  mav,  however,  be  desirable 
that  we  should  obtain  a  clear  view  of  the  masons  why  such 
honors  are  to  be  given  to  Jesus  Christ. — We  may  therefore 
observe, 

1.  That  Divine  honors  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God,  on 
the  principle  of  derived  dignity.  He  is  God's  orvn  Son^  his 
First'begotten^  his  only  begotten  Son ;  and  he  h^th,  by  in- 
heritance^ a  more  excellent  name  than  the  Angels.  On  the 
same  principle  that  an  own  and  only  son  of  a  rightful  Kin^ 
is  to  be  regarded  and  honored  as  a  royal  person,  Divine 
honors  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  The  Son  of  God  is  worthy  of  Divine  honors^  on  the 
ground  of  his  Divine  fulness  :  for  it  hath  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  all  fulness  should  dwell.  That  fulness  which 
Christ  possesses  by  the  pleasure  of  the  Father,  is  really 
Christ*  s  fulness ;    ad  it  is  as  excellent  considered  as  the 

fulness  oj  Christy  as  it  is  considered  as  the  fulness  of  the 
Father,  The  self-existence  of  God  does  not  imply  that  he 
was  the  cause  of  his  own  existence  or  his  own  fulness.  And 
God  is,  in  truth,  no  more  the  c  use  of  his  ownfidness  than 
Christ  is  the  C'Use  of  the  Divine  fulness  which  dwells  in 
him  by  the  pleasure  of  God.  If,  therefore,  the  fulness 
there  is  in  God  be  a  proper  ground  on  which  to  give  him 
Divine  honors^  the  fulness  there  is  in  Christ  is  a  reason  why 
we  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  we  honor  the  Father- 
that  is,  so  far  as  Divine  fulness  is  the  ground  of  Divine 
honors, 

3.  The  Son  of  God  is  worthy  of  Divine  honors^  on  the 
ground  of  his  Divine  offices.  It  is  a  dictate  of  reason  and 
revelation,  that  official  character  should  be  respected  and 


On  the  real  Divinity  aM^O^Qry^f^thrUi:.  • .'       99 

honored.  And  the  higher  t;h'd  qfjioe  a^y*  ^per^^i  ss^sgains 
by  right,  the  greater  are  the'holTr)r%.\\^Hicfi,are*d&i;  Vrf'the 
ground  of  ofEcial  character.  The  official  character  of  a 
General  demands  higher  honors  than  that  of  a  corporal— 
the  official  character  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
demands  higher  honors  than  that  of  an  ordinary  civil  magis- 
trate. And  on  the  same  principle.  Divine  honors  s^re  duQ 
to  the  Son  of  God  :  for  his  offices  are  truly  Divine,  The 
offices  of  Savior,  Judge,  and  Lord  of  all,  are  as  truly 
Divine  offices  as  any  offices  sustained  hy  God  the  Father. 
And  if  there  be  any  reason  to  give  Divine  honors  to  God 
in  view  of  his  Divine  offices,  there  is  the  same  reason  to 
give  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God  :  for  the  Son  has  not 
obtained  these  offices  by  violence  or  usurpation,  but  by  the 
pleasure  of  God,  who  had  an  unquestionable  right  to  bestow 
them.  And  if  he  truly  possess  those  offices  by  the  gift  of  the 
Father,  so  far  as  official  character  may  be  a  ground  of  Di- 
vine HONORS,  Christ  is  as  worthy  of  Divine  honors  as 
though  he  had  possessed  the  same  offices  by  self-existence. 
Therefore,  on  the  ground  of  official  character,,  we  may 
honor  the  Son  even  as  zve  honor  the  Father. 

4.  The  Son  of  God  is  worty  of  Divine  honors,  on  the 
ground  of  Divine  works.  Creation  is  a  Divine  work  ; 
and  by  him  were  all  things  created.  Upholding  and  gov- 
erning the  world  is  a  Divine  work  ;  and  he  upholdeth  all 
things  by  the  word  of  his  power  ;*  and  he  is  Lord  of  all. 
Salvation  is  a  Divine  work  ;  and  God  hath  exalted  him. 
to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Savior — The  price  of  redemption 
he  has  personally  paid  ;  and  he  is  made  Head  over  all 
things  to  the  church.  Judging  the  world  is  a  Divine  work  j 
and  the  Father  hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son. 
It  is  indeed  a  truth,  that  God  does  all  these  things  by  his 
Son  ;  but  the  Son  is  the  real  agent  or  doer  of  these  things, 
astru  y  as  Paul  was  the  author  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy. 

It  is  a  principle  of  reason  and  common  sense,  as  well  as 
of  revelation,  that  great  and  excellent  works  are  a  proper 
ground  of  honor.     When  the  Elders  of  the  Jews  came   to 


*  Heb.  i.  3.  In  his  Family  Expositor,  Dr.  Doddridge  expresi- 
es  the  opinion,  that  the  phrase  '*  /lis  /lowtr"  intends  the  fiower 
<\f  the  Father  ;  and  the  construction  of  tiie  seiaence  is  in  favor  of 
Ins  opinion.  But  this  is  no  objection  to  the  idea,  that  the  power, 
by  which  the  world  is  uplicld,  is  also  truly  Christ's  fiovjer.  It  is 
t\\Q  fio^iuer  of  God,  originally  and  independently,  and  thc/iOWtT 
a/  Christ  by  the  pieasuie  of  the  Father. 


100         On  the  req^  Divihtfy  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

Chri?t  to  rftqueat  fayor  in  behalf  of  the  Centurion,  whose 
s^rv'antr  y/ti^  sric^.^' in  coifipepdation  of  the  Centurion  rhe 
Elders  said.  That  "  he  is  worthy  for  wHom  he  should  do 
this  ;  for  he  loveth  our  nation,  and  hath  built  us  a  syna- 
gogue." What  honors  have  been  paid  to  Washington^  on 
the  ground  not  only  of  the  important  offices  he  sustained, 
but  on  the  ground  of  the  important  xvorks  he  performed  \ 
Now,  if  more  honor  has  been  due  to  Washington  on  the 
grou2id  of  his  works,  than  has  been  due  to  the  m<-anest 
soldier  in  his  arjny,  or  the  m-:;anest  peasant  in  community, 
Divine  honors  are  due  to  Christ  on  the  ground  of  his  Divine 
Tvorks,  A  greater  than  Washington  is  here  ;  one  uho  has 
done  greater  things  ;  one  who  hath  'oved  our  race,  and 
huilt  us  a  world,  and  filled  it  with  the  fruits  of  his  kind- 
ness ;  yea,  one  who  hath  so  loved  us  as  t<i  give  himself  his 
07VJI  life^  for  our  redemption.  But  God  raise(*l  him  from 
the  dead,  and  '••  exalted  him  wHh  his  own  rght  hand." — - 
God  viewed  him  worthv  of  Divine  honors^  on  the  ground 
of  what  he  had  done,  *•'•  wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name  above  every  name,  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow^"*  If  it  was  not  im- 
proper for  G  )d  to  place  the  Son  on  his  own  right  hand^  it 
is  not  improper  for  us  to  pay  Divine  honors  to  his  name. 

From  the  evidence  we  have  in  the  sacred  writings,  that 
Divine  honors  are  to  be  paid  to  the  Son  of  God,  it  has  been 
inferred,  that  the  Son  is  personally  the  self  existent  God. 
And  so  confident  have  some  been  that  this  interence  is  in- 
fallibly correct,  that  they  have  ventured,  on  the  supposition 
it  be  not  so,  to  implicate  the  Christian  world  in  a  charge  of 
gross  idolatry,  and  the  God  of  truth  in  a  charge  of  self- 
contradiction  and  inconsistency.  Is  not  this.  Sir,  for  fal- 
lible creatures,  carrying  things  to  a  great  length?  And 
does  it  not  imply  such  a  degree  of  confidence  in  the  correct- 
ness of  their  own  understandings,  as  none  should  possess 
until  they  arrive  to  that  state  where  they  shall  see  as  they 
shall  be  seen,  and  know  as  they  shall  be  known  ? 

But  what,  S  r,  is  the  ground  on  which  th!s  extraordina- 
l^v  confidence  rests  ?  Is  it  not  a  principle^  taken  for  grant" 
ed^  which  has  no  real  foundation  in  reason,  analogy,  or  the 
"Word  of  God  ?  Yea,  a  principle  which  is  contradicted  by 
analogy,  and  by  as  plain  representations  as  are  contained  in 
the  Oracles  of  truth  ?  The  principle  taken  for  granted  is 
this,  That  it  is  impossible  with  God  to  constitute  a  charac^ 


On  the  real  Dhimty  and  G  lor  if  fifChrkU^>       101.  >^ 

TFR  which  shall  b3  worth v  of  Divine  honors  ;  therefore,  if 
Jesus  Christ  be  not  personally  the  svif-j^xlbtpiii  G!;>,d,;h«?  c^xr 
not  be  an  object  of  Divine  honors. 

But,  Sir,  be  pleased  to  admit,  for  one  moment,  the  pos^ 
sibility  that  Christ  is  just  su  h  a  Pc-rson  and  character  as  I 
have  supposed  him  to  be — truly  the  Son  of  the  living  God, 
God's  OWN  and  only  Son — a  Son  in  whom  it  hath  pleased 
the  Father  that  all  fulness  should  dwell — one  trulv  united  to 
Deity,  and  by  God  Invested  with  the  Divine  offices  of  Sa* 
vior^  Lord^  and  Judge  :  What  but  Divine  honors  are  due 
to  his  name  I 

What  says  analogy  ? — By  David's  pleasure,  we  behold 
Solomon  placed  on  the  throne  of  Israel ;  and  we  see  the 
friends  of  David  and  of  Solomon  giving  him  the  honors 
which  were  due  to  the  son  of  David  and  King  of  Israel — - 
We  also  see  the  So}i  of  God^  "  for  the  suffering  of  drath^ 
crowned  with  glory  and  honor,"  seated  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Majesty  on  high,  exacted  by  God,  as  L;>rd  of  all; 
and  sh^U  we  pronounce  it  idolatry  to  pay  him  Divine-  horiors 
as  the  Son  of  God^  and  the  constituted  Lord  of  the  universe  ? 
Or  sha'l  we  arraign  the  conduct  of  God,  and  pronounce  it 
absurd  for  him  thus  to  exalt  his  ows  S'^N  ? 

But  what  saith  the  Scriptun^s  ?  When  they  represent 
Christ  as  an  object  of  Divine  honors,  do  they  not  uniform- 
ly represent  him  as  a  Person  as  distinct  from  God  as  he  is 
from  the  Father?  Is  there  one  instance  in  which  he  is 
represented  as  the  self-existent  God,  and  on  that  ground 
worshipped  ? — In  regard  to  those  declarations  of  the  Di- 
vine will  respecting  the  honoring  of  Christ,  or  the  worship- 
ping of  Christ,  is  he  not  in  the  plainest  manner  distinguish- 
ed from  the  self-existent  God  ?  All  judgment  was  com- 
mitted unto  HIM  by  the  Father,  that  all  men  should 
honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  Was  he 
not  a  Being  distinct  from  the  one  who  committed  all  judg- 
ment unto  him  ?  In  the  connexion,  he  calls  that  Being  his 
Father  ;  and  Peter  says,  that  Christ  commanded  his  dis- 
ciples to  preach  and  to  testify  that  it  is  He  who  is  ord  in- 
ed  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  the  quick  and  the  dead.  There- 
fore, when  he  is  honored  as  the  Judge,  he  is  honored  as 
one  ordained  of  God.  He  is  then,  in  this  case,  plainly 
distinguished  from  God.  It  was  God  also  who  brought 
him  into  the  world,  as  the  only  begotten,  and  said,  "  Let 
all  the  Angels  of  God  -worship  hijm,"     It  wus  God  also 


102       '^Oii  this  re^ii  pwihity  and  Glory  of  Christ* 

W>\o:"  EX^j.TED-^tiM;;"  anii'God  gave  him  the  name  which 
is 'aho^eeN^cry  name^  ^Hat  at  the  name  pf  Jesus  every  knee 
SHOULD  BOW.  In  all  these  cases,  the  Son  is  as  c'earlv  dis- 
tinguished from  God,  as  Solomon  is,  in  any  place,  distin- 
guished from  David. 

As  there  is  no  declaration  importing  that  Christ  should 
be  worshipped  or  honored  as  being  personally  the  self-ex- 
istent God,  we  may  perhaps  find,  that,  in  the  examples  of 
\irorshipping  Christ,  he  was  honored  or  worshipped  as 
a  Being  distinct  from  God.  When  he  had  stilled 
the  tempest,  they  that  were  in  the  ship  came  and  wor- 
shipped him,  saying,  "  Of  a  truth  thou  art  the  Son  of 
God.'*  And  in  several  instances  he  was  worshipped  under 
this  title.  By  the  woman  of  Canaan  he  was  worshipped  as 
the  Lord,  the  Son  of  David.  Can  any  person  of  candor 
and  discernment  suppose,  that  in  either  of  these  cases  he 
was  considered  as  personally  the  self-existent  God  ?  The 
terms  they  used  certainly  import  no  such  thing.  To  be  the 
Son  of  God,  and  to  be  the  self-existent  God,  are  ideas  as 
distinct  as  David  and  the  Son  of  David.  The  Angels 
were  notrequ  red  to  worship  him  as  the  self-existent  God  ; 
but  the  self-existent  God  required  them  to  worship  Christ 
as  the  ONLY  begotten  Son  of  God.  When  John,  in  the 
Revelations,  gives  us  such  a  striking  representation  of  the 
worship  or  Divine  honors  paid  by  all  the  Angels  and  Saints 
to  Christ  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  the  Lamb,  in  the  represent 
tations,  is  clearly  distingu  shed  from  God  as  another  intel- 
ligent Being — as  one  who  had  been  slain — as  one  who 
bad  redeemed  us  to  God  by  his  blood.  No  one,  it  is  hoped, 
will  pretend,  that  God,  the  self-existent,  was  ever  slatn ; 
yet  when  Divine  honors  were  paid  the  Lamb,  the  Angels 
and  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord  said,  "  Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  was  slain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom, 
and  strength,  and  h<-»nor,  and  glory,  and  blessing." 

There  is  not,  perhaps,  a  more  striking  representation  of 
Divine  honors  paid  to  the  Son  of  God,  in  any  part  of  the 
Bible,  than  those  which  are  given  by  John  in  the  Revela- 
tions ;  yet  all  those  honors  were  paid  to  one  who  could  say, 
*'  I  am  He  that  Uveth,  and  xvas  dead,  and,  behold,  I  live 
forevermore  ;"  and  to  one  whom  the  worshippers  consider- 
ed as  having  been  slain.  Then,  as  true  as  it  is  that  God 
was  never  personally  dead,  so  true  it  is  that  Jesus  Christ 
may  receive  Divine  honors  as  an  intelligent  Being,  person- 
ally distinct  from  God. 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrkt.         tOZ 

It  may  not  be  amiss  here  to  notice  an  extraordinary  idea 
feiiggested  by  Mr.  Jones,  in  regard  to  the  Lamb.  Speak- 
ing upon  these  words,  "  Thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  redeem- 
ed us  to  God  by  thy  blood,"  and  feeling  the  impropriety  of 
supposing  that  God  suffered  and  died^  he  informs  us  that  by 
the  Lamb  is  intended  "'  the  Measiati^s  hu7nanity.^*  [p.  32.] 
That  the  title  LamB  includes  the  Messiah's  humanity,  is  not 
denied  ;  but  that  the  term  Lamb  means  the  Messiah'is 
humanity  in  contradistinction  to  his  own  proper  nature  as 
the  Son  of  God,  may  not  be  admitted.  If  the  name  Lamb 
mean  the  *'  Messiah's  humanity"  in  the  sense  suggested  by 
Mr.  Jones,  we  may  properly  substitute  the  terms  the 
*'  Messiah^s  humanity^^  whenever  the  word  Lamb  is  used  as 
denoting  Christ. 

Let  us  then  m.ake  use  of  the  substitute  in  the  connexion 
from  which  Mr.  Jones  ^elected  the  text. 

"  And  I  beheld,  and  lo,  'n  the  midst  of  the  throne— stood 
the  "  Messiali's  humanity^'*  as  it  had  been  slain^  having 
seven  horns  and  seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven  spirits  of 
God  :  And  he  came  and  took  the  book — And  when  he  had 
taken  the  book,  the  four  beasts  and  the  four  and  twenty 
elders  fell  down  before  the  "  Messiah^s  humanity'*'^ — and 
thev  sung  a  new  song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the 
book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof ;  for  thou  wast  slain, 
&rc. — worthy  is  the  "  Messiali's  humanity'^'*  that  was  slain, 
to  receive  power,  &c. — Blessing,  and  honor,  and  power, 
unto  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and  to  the  "  Messiah's 
humanity^*  forever  and  ever."     Rev.  ch.  v. 

To  such  absurdity,  Sir,  are  great  and  good  men  some- 
times reduced,  in  attempting  to  support  a  theory  in  op- 
position to  the  plain  import  of  Scripture  language.  Had 
Mr.  Jones  duly  regarded  the  natural  meaning  of  the  terms 
the  Son  ofGod^  and  believed  that  he  was  made  in  the  like- 
ness  of  men  by  becoming  the  soul  of  a  human  body,  that  he 
really  svffered  diXid.  died  on  the  cross  as  the  antitype  of  the 
paschal  Lamb,  he  might  then  have  considered  the  Lamb, 
seen  by  John,  as  the  Messiah  himself  and  not  the  ^'•Messiah'^s 
humanity,^"* — But  if  an  Athanasian  writer  may  so  construe 
the  names  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  implicitly  to  represent  all 
the  heavenly  hosts  as  worshipping  the  "  Messiah's  humani- 
ty y^  may  I  not  escape  censure  in  regard  to  the  hypothesis 
that  God  hath  exalted  his  oivn  Son  and  constkutsd  him.  an 
object  of  Divine  honors  f 


104         On  the  real  Dhlnlty  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

What !  vou  mav  say,  are  we  to  have  two  Gods  ?  No, 
Sir;  my  objVct  is  to  prove  that  we  have  but  one  self-existent 
God,  by  proving  that,  in  the  view  df  God,  of  angels,  and 
of  saints  in  glorv,  the  Son  of  God  is  an  object  of  Divine 
•war ''hip  ;  not,  indeed,  on  the  ground  of  self- existence,  but 
on  the  ground  of  his  dignitv  as  God^s  own  and  onhj  Soriy 
and  the  constituted  Lord^nd  Savior  of  the  world. 

But,  Sir,  let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  and  never  for- 
gotten, that  whi  e  we  thus  honor  the  Son  rf  God,  we  honor 
the  Father  a'so.  Christ  taught  his  disciples  this  doctr  ne. 
He  that  receiveth  me,  receiveth  him  that  sent  me  ;  and  he 
that  despiseth  me,  despiseth  him  that  sent  me.  And  when 
he  taught  the  Jews  that  the  *'  Father  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son,  that  all  men  may  honor  the  Son 
even  as  they  honor  the  Father,"  he  subjoined,  "  He  that 
honoreth  not  the  Son^  honoreth  not  the  Father  that  sent 
him."  And  when  Paul  stated  to  the  Phi^ippians  how  God 
had  exnlted  his  Son^  and  given  him  a  name  above  every 
name,  that  every  knee  should  bow  to  the  name  of  Jesus,  he 
let  them  know  that  tht-  Divine  honors  to  be  paid  to  Christ 
were  "  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father^"* 

On  whichsoever  of  the  grounds  that  have  been  stated,  we 
pav  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God,  the  same  are,  at  the 
same  t'me,  paid  to  the  Fnther. 

If  we  honor  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  the  Father's  r<?- 
quirement^  we  thus  honor  the  Father. 

If  we  honor  the  Son  on  the  principle  o{  derived  dignity 
as  the  Son  of  God,  the  character  of  the  Father  is  the 
primary  ground  of  the  honors  paid  to  the  Son, 

If  we  pav  Divine  honors  to  Christ  c/U  this  ground,  that 
**  in  him  dwelleth  a  1  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,"  we  honor 
the  fulness  of  the  Father,  as  truly  as  when  the  Person  of 
the  Father  is  immediately  honored. 

It  we  honor  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  his  official  charac" 
ter  and  the  Divine  authority  he  possesses  by  the  pleasure 
of  the  Father,  as  the  constituted  Savior,  Lord,  and  Judge 
of  the  world,  it  is  not  only  the  authority  of  the  Son,  but  the 
Father's  authority  in  him,  which  we  honor  and  adore. 

If  we  honor  him  on  the  ground  of  his  Divine  works  as 
Creator  and  Lord,  the  Father  in   him  does  the  work. 

If  we  honor  the  Son  on  the  ground  of  his  abasement^  suf 
fering^  and  deaths  for  our  sakes,  we  are  at  the  same  time 
to  remember,    that  "  God  so  loved  the  world,  tl       he 


On  the  real  JDivimty  and  Glory  of  Christ        105 

GAVE  his  ONLY  BEGOTTEN  Son" — atid  that  it  is  "  UNTO 
God"  that  the  Son  hath  redeemed  us  by  his  blood. 

Therefore,  in  every  point  of  view,  and  on  every  ground, 
the  Divine  honors  which  are  paid  to  the  Son  are  "  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father, ^^ 

Is  it  not,  Sir,  surprizing,  that  Christian  writers  should 
have  been  so  unguarded  as  to  assert,  that  if  Jesus  Christ 
be  not  personally  and  truly  the  self-existent  God,  then  the 
Christian  church  in  all  ages  have  been  guilty  of  "  gross 
idolatry  ;"  and  that  the  religion  of  Christ  "  is  so  far  from. 
destroying  idolatry,  that  it  is  only  a  more  refined  and  dan* 
gerous  species  of  it  ?"  If  such  writers  have  incautiously 
implicated  themselves  in  a  charge  of  idolatry^  it  is  hoped 
they  will  not  blame  me  for  that.  To  accuse  them  of 
idolatry,  or  to  view  them  as  guilty  of  it,  ii  far  from  me* 
For  though  the  correctness  of  their  views,  in  respect  to  the 
ground  on  which  Divine  honors  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God, 
is  doubted,  yet  in  my  view  they  have  not  given  him  more 
honor  than  is  due  to  his  name.  They  ma}'  have,  indeed, 
in  support  of  their  theory,  said  things  respecting  the  per- 
sonal self-existence  and  independence  of  the  Son  of  God, 
which  are  more  than  are  true  j  but  it  is  doubted  whether 
any  Christian  on  earth,  in  his  devotional  views  and  feel- 
ings, ever  ascribed  so  much  real  excellency  and  glory  to 
Christ,  as  are  properly  due  to  his  name. 

If  you,  Sir,  entertain  the  idea,  that  my  views  of  the 
real  excellency^  glory ^  and  love  of  Christ,  have  been  lower- 
ed down  by  adopting  the  present  theory,  be  assured  that 
the  very  reverse  of  your  apprehensions  is  the  truth.  While 
supporting  your  theory,  and  speaking  conformably  to  it, 
my  language  imported  ideas  respecting  Christ  which  now 
appear  incorrect.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  adopt  forms  of 
speech  of  high  itnport^  and  another  to  have  distinct  and 
impressive  ideas  of  real  majesty^  dignity^  and  glory.  And 
while .  formerly  using  language  which  imported  the  self- 
existence  and  independence  of  Christ,  my  ideas  respecting 
his  greatness  and  glory,  as  a  distinct  Person  from  the 
Father,  were  very  confused  and  indistinct.  For  it  was 
impossible  for  me  to  form  a  definite  idea  of  what  could  be 
meant  by  Person^  on  the  theory  of  three  Persons  in  one  God 
or  one  Being,  The  Son  of  God,  as  united  to  the  man  or 
human  nature  of  Christ,  was  to  me  a  certain  scmethi?7g^ 
'xbout  which  the  terms  self-existence  and  independence  vrere 
O 


106         On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChrlsU 

used  by  me  as  by  others,  but  of  which  no  definite  idea  wa« 
conceived,  an}'  more  than  of  that  in  bodies  which  is  called 
the  principle  or  power  of  attraction;  excepting, when,  by 
the  aid  of  analogy,  the  Son  of  God  was  viewed  as  a  distinct 
inteHigent  Being.  But  as  this  was  contrary  to  the  theory, 
when  that  occurred  my  mind  was  necessarily  confused. 
But  on  the  present  theory,  the  natural  import  of  Scripture 
language,  in  view  of  analogies,  affords  me  ideas  of  the 
Majesty,  the  Glory,  the  Dignity,  and  the  Love  of  Christ, 
far  more  distinct^  exalted^  and  impressive^  than  any  vvhich 
ever  entered  my  mind  on  Athanasian  ground. 

It  is  not,  however,  Sir,  my  intention  to  intimate  that 
your  views,  and  the  views  of  other  Athanasians,  respecting 
Christ,  are  not  greater,  and  in  some  respects  much  more 
clear,  than  my  own  preseiit  viexus.  My  object  has  been 
simply  to  state  the  effect  of  the  present  theory  on  my  own 
■mind.  And  for  this  reason — it  is  perceived  that  some 
have  apprehended  that  the  character  of  the  Son  of  God 
must  have  been  depreciated  in  my  own  view. 

Here  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  more  particularly  the 
self-contradiction  and  inconsistency,  in  which  it  has  been 
supposed  God  must  be  involved  if  his  Son  be  not  self- 
existent — The  parts  of  the  supposed  contradiction  are  of 
the  following  tenor,  viz. 

On  the  one  hand,  God  has  positively  prohibited  the 
worship  of  idols,  or  any  god  but  himself.  He  has  said, 
*'  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  gods  before  me."  "  I  am  the  Lord,  that  is  my 
name,  and  my  glory  I  will  not  give  to  another,  neither  my 
praise  to  graven  images." 

On  the  other  hand,  God  said  respecting  his  Son,  "  Let 
all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him" — And  he  has  given 
him  a  name  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow. 

In  view  of  such  passages,  it  has  been  inferred  that  Christ 
is  personally  the  same  God  who  has  made  these  declara- 
tions,, or  there  must  be  a  contradiction. — To  show  that 
nfcitl;jer  of  these  inferences  is  correct,  is  the  design  of  the 
following  observations. 

1.  If  Jesus  Christ  be  truly  the  Son  of  the  self-existent 
God,  he  is  neither  a  graven  vnage^  an  idol,  nor  a  false  god- 
Hence, 


On  the  real  Dhiiiity  and  Glorij  ofChrhu         107 

2.  A  prohibition  respecting  the  worship  oi graven  im- 
ages^ or  idols^  or  false  gods,  amounts  to  no  prohibition  of 
paying  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  So7i  of  God, 
or  the  constituted  Lord  oi  the  universe. — Therefore, 

3.  Consistently  with  all  that  God  has  said  in  the  Bible 
against  the  worship  of  grave:n  images^  oi  idols,  or  oi  false 
gods,  he  might  excdt  his  San,  and  require  men  and  angels 
to  pay  Divine  honors  to  his  name. 

It  may  still  be  thought, .  that  if  the  Son  be  not  the  self- 
existent  God,  but  has  been  exalted  by  the  self-existent  God 
as  an  object  of  Divine  honors,  then  God  has  given  his  glory 
to  another,  contrary  to  his  own  word.  It  may  therefore  be 
observed, 

4.  For  God  to  give  his  glory  to  another,  in  the  sense 
of  the  text  alluded  to,  must  imply  doing  something  respect- 
ing another  or  authorizing  something  to  be  done  respecting 
another,  which  is  dishonorary  to  himself.  To  glorify 
another,  or  to  cause  another  to  be  glorified,  in  a  manner 
"which  contributes  to  his  own  glory,  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  his  declaration  that  he  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another* 
To  make  out,  then,  that  there  is  so  much  as  the  shadotv  of 
a  contradiction  in  the  case,  it  must  be  made  to  appear,  that 
to  pay  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  Son  of 
GoD^  and  the  one  in  whom  the  Father  is  ever  well  pleased, 
is  dishonorary  to  the  Father.  But  to  prove  this,  will  be 
a  task  which  probably  very  few  will  venture  to  undertake. 

By  those  who  have  urged  this  supposed  contradiction, 
has  it  not  been  taken  for  granted,  that  the  Son  of  God  may 
be  a  distinct  Person  from  God  the  Father,  and  yet  the  self- 
same Being  ?  And  should  this.  Sir,  be  taken  for  granted  ? 
But  if  it  be,  still  the  texts  which  they  rely  upon  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  supposed  contradiction,  do  as  fully  import  a 
prohibition  of  Divine  honors  to  any  other  Person  but  the 
one  who  made  the  declarations,  as  to  any  other  Being, — 
In  those  texts  God  does  not  represent  himself  as  three  Per- 
sons, but  as  one  individual  Person-— ^''  /am  God,  and  there 
is  none  else — Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me—^ 
I  am  the  Lord,  and  my  glory  /will  not  give  to  another." 
Therefore,  if  these  passages  amount  to  a  prohibition  of 
paying  Divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God,  as  being  truly  the 
Son  of  God,  they  equally  prohibit  paying  Divine  honors  to 
the  Son  considered  as  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father,, 
■whether  self-existent  or  not*  The  self-same  Person  is  repr.e- 


108  On  the  real  Dhm'iiy  and  Glory  ofChrhu 

sented  as  saying  at  one  time,  /am  the  Lor  J,  and  my  glory  I 
will  not  give  to  another...  At  another  time  he  says  respecting 
the  Person  who  is  called  his  only  begotten  Son^  "  Let  all 
the  Angels  of  God  worship  him."  And,  if  these  passages 
would  involve  a  contradiction  on  the  hypothesis  that  the 
Son  is  a  Person  truly  derivid  from  the  Father,  they  in- 
volve precisely  the  same  contradiction  on  the  hypothesis 
that  the  So7i  is  a  self-existent  Person  distinct  from  the 
Father. 

Having  thus  endeavored  to  show,  from  the  Scriptures, 
that  Divine  honors  are  due  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  the 
grounds  on  which  they  are  due,  and  also  to  obviate  what 
has  been  viewed  by  some  as  insurmountable  objections  to 
the  theory,  you  will  suffer  me  now  to  appeal  to  your  own 
conscience,  and  ask,  whether  my  views  of  the  honors  due 
to  the  Son  of  God  do  not  harmonize  with  your  own  prac- 
tical views  andjeelings^  and  with  your  usual  forms  of  speech 
in  prayer  and  praise  P  Reflections  on  my  own  former 
views  and  feelings,  and  observations  in  regard  to  the  pray- 
ers of  my  Aihanasian  brethren,  encourage  me  to  do  this. 

In  respect  to  my  own  experience,  adopting  the  present 
theory  has  given  no  occasion  to  vary  my  forms  of  speech 
from  what  was  natural  and  usual  with  me  before,  in  regard 
to  the  Son  of  God.  And  it  is  observed,  that  the  prayers  of 
my  Athanasian  brethren,  so  far  as  the  Son  is  mentioned, 
agree  with  my  present  views  ;  excepting  when  they  appear 
to  wish  to  introduce  some  particular  expressions  to  commu- 
nicate or  support  their  particular  theory.  It  may  not  then 
ibe  amiss  to  class  myself  with  you  and  them,  and  observe 
how  we  pray* 

We  occasionally  address  petitions  to  Christ  as  the  Son 
of  God,  the  Lord  of  all,  the  Redeemer  of  our  souls,  or  the 
Mead  of  the  church.  We  sometimes  distinctly  thank  him 
for  his  kindness  and  mercy  in  laying  down  his  life  for  our 
redemption  ;  and  for  the  benefits  we  receive  through  his 
mediation  and  atonement.  But  in  this  particular,  perhaps 
we  are  generally  deficient ;  and  much  less  frequently  bring 
the  Son  into  view  in  our  prayers  than  would  be  proper.  In 
our  ascriptions  of  praise,  at  the  close  of  our  prayers,  we 
frequently  and  properly  mention  the  Father  and  the  Son  as 
two  distinct  Persons,  or  intelligent  Beings. 

But  in  general^  we  address  our  prayers  to  God  as  one 
distinct  Person  and  Being.     We  bless  the  name  of  this  one 


On  the  real  Divinity  end  Glory  of  Christ,         ^09 

God  for  his  kindness  and  love  in  giving  his  own  Son  to  die 
for  our  offences.  And  the  forms  of  speech  which  we  use 
clearly  convey  the  idea  that  God  is  one  distinct  intelligent 
Being,  and  his  Son  another  ;  as  distinct  as  any  other  father 
and  son.  We  beseech  God  to  bestow  favors  through  the 
mediation  and  atonement  of  his  Sun.  We  plead  with  God 
on  the  ground  of  what  his  Son  has  done  and  suffered  for 
us.  We  adore  God  for  having  exalted  his  Son  as  Lord  of 
all,  and  makmg  him  Head  over  all  things  to  the  church. 
And,  in  conformity  to  the  langiiage  of  Scripture,  we  make 
use  of  thousands  of  expressions  which  denote  as  clear  a  dis- 
tinction between  GoD  and  His  Son,  as  are  ever  made  be- 
tween Abraham  and  Isaac. 

And,  however  inconsistent  such  a  distinction  may  be 
with  the  Athanasian  theory,  it  is  a  distinction  to  which  we 
are  naturally  led  by  our  intimacy  with  the  language  of  the 
Bible.  And  these  forms  of  speech  are,  it  is  thought,  a 
correct  expression  of  the  habitual  and  practical  views  even 
of  Athanasians  themselves,  in  their  devotional  exercises.— 
Believing  this  to  be  the  case,  and  that  it  is  consistent  with 
the  manner  in  which  Divine  honors  are  paid  to  the  Son  of 
God  by  saints  and  angels  in  heaven,  who  can  believe  that 
the  Christian  church  have  been  guilty  of  "  idolatry'*'*  in  the 
homage  they  have  paid  to  the  "  Lamb  of  God  V* 

In  considering  him  as  the  self-existent  God,  it  is  thought 
my  brethren  have  been  under  a  mistake  ;  but  not  in  con- 
sidering him  as  an  object  of  Divine  honors  ;  nor  is  it  ap- 
prehended that  in  their  habitual  and  devotional  feelings  they 
have  ascribed  more  honor  than  is  due  to  his  name.  And 
so  far  as  tbey  have  fallen  short  of  believing^  feelings  and  ac^ 
knowledging  the  awful  realities  of  the  personal  abasement^ 
sufferings  and  deaths  of  the  Son  of  God,  so  far  they  have, 
in  my  opinion,  in  one  particular,  fallen  short  of  giving  him 
due  praise. 

The  ten  times  ten  thousand,  and  the  thousands  of  thou- 
sands, who  were  observed  by  John  as  paying  honors  to  the 
Son  of  God,  did  not  say,  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  who  united 
himself  to  a  man  that  was  slain;  nor  did  they  say,  Worthy 
is  the  "  Messi'.'h\^  humanity'*^  that  was  slain :  but,  "  Wor-t 
thy  is  the  Lamb,  that  was  slazn^  to  receive,"  &c. 

In  a  preceding  verse,  the  Redeemed  do  not  say,  Thou 
art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and  to  loose  the  seven  seals 
thereof  J  for  the  man  to  xvhom  thou  xvast  united  wsis  slain: 


lld^         On  the  teal  Dimnity  and  Glcrry  of  Christ. 

but,  "  Thou  art  worthy — for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast 
redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,"  . 

Must  it  not,  Sir,  appear  on  your  hypothesis,  either  that 
Divine  honors  were  paid  to  the  "  MessioJi^s  humanity^^  or 
that  the  self-existent  God  was  pers^nallif  slain  f  As  you 
will  deny  both  these  positions,  let  me  ask,  how  can  you 
consistently  join  the  song  of  the  redeemed,  till  you  renounce 
3'our  theory  ?  Can  you  ever,  consistently,  say,  Worthy  is 
the  Lamb  that  was  slain  t 

POSTSCRIPT  TO  LETTER  VIIL 

SO  far  as  I  have  had  opportunity  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  views  of  others,  it  has  been,  in  general,  professedly 
conceded  by  Athanasians,  by  Arians,  and  by  Socinians, 
that  there  can  be  but  one  object  of  Divine  honors  ;  and 
that  if  Christ  be  not  personally  the  self-existent  God,  to 
•worship,  or  to  pray  to  him,  must  be  idolatry. 

But,  Sir,  are  not  God,  and  the  Soif  at  his  right  hand^ 
two  distinct  objects  ?  Are  net  God,  and  the  Lamb,  two 
distinct  objects  ?  When  God  said  respecting  his  Son, 
"  Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him^"*  is  the  meaning 
the  same  as  though  he  had  said.  Let  all  the  angels  of  God 
worship  ME  ?  Suppose  an  earthly  King  should  exalt  his 
own  son,  and  give  him  the  right  hand  as  a  co-partner  with 
him  on  the  throne,  and  require  all  his  subjects  to  "  bow  the 
knee'"'  and  pay  royal  honors  to  the  son  ;  woutd  not  the  fa- 
ther and  the  son  be  still  two  distinct  objects  ?  And  have 
ive  not  reason  to  believe,  that  it  is  in  allusion  to  such  events 
that  we  have  it  represented  in  the  Scripture,  that  God  hath 
exalted  his  Son  with  his  own  right  hand? 

If  God  has,  in  very  deed,  given  all  things  into  the  hands 
of  the  Son,  and  exalted  him  to  be  Lord  of  all,  can  it  be 
idolatry  to  worship  him  according  to  the  rank  assigned  him 
by  God  ?  Can  it  be  improper  or  criminal  to  pray  to  him 
who  is  thus  able  to  help  us,  and  to  praise  and  thank  him 
for  what  he  is,  and  for  what  he  has  done  for  our  sakes  ? 

W^hen  you  say  that  it  must  be  idolatry  to  worship  or 
pray  to  Christ,  unless  he  be  the  self- existent  God,  do  you 
not  implicitly  accuse  God  of  establishing  id?latry  ?  For  the 
Divine  honors  to  be  paid  to  the  Son  are  instituted  by  God. 
Besides,  do  you  not  arbitrarily  attach  ideas  to  the  terms 
worship  and  prayer^  which  do  not  necessarily  or  naturally 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,         111 

belong  to  them  ?  viz.  That  zuorship  and  prayer  imply,  that 
the  object  worshipped  and  addressed  is  acknowledged  to 
be  personally  the  self-existent  God,  by  him  who  worships 
or  prays. 

But  by  what  authority  do  you  attach  such  ideas  to  the 
words  worship  and  prayer  ?  May  not  a  child  bow  the 
knee  to  his  father,  and  ask  forgiveness  for  an  offence,  or 
pray  for  favors  which  the  father  can  bestow  ?  May  not  a 
subject  do  the  same  before  a  worthy  King  ?  The  word 
worship  is  used  to  express  the  reverence  or  respect  paid  by 
an  inferior  to  a  superior  ;  and  in  proportion  to  the  degree 
of  disparity,  is  the  degree  of  homage  and  respect  which  is 
due. 

Shall  it,  Sir,  be  deemed  consistent  for  a  poor  malefactor 
to  bow  the  knee  to  one  whom  the  people  have  exalted  as 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  supplicate   favor  ? 
And  shall  it  be  deemed  a  crime  to  make  supplication  to  Him 
whom  God  hath  exalted  with  his  own  right  hand,  to  be  a     '* 
Prince  and  a  Savior^  to  give  repentance  and  remission  of 
sins  ?     It  is  not  indeed  proper  to  pray  to  the  President  as 
to  the  self-existent  God  ;  but  it  is  proper  to  address  peti- 
tions to  him,  and  to  pay  homage  to  him  according  to  his 
rank  or  dignity.     Nor  is  it  in  my  view  proper,  in  address- 
ing prayers  to  Christ,  to  consider  him  as  personally  the 
self-existent  God.     Yet  it  is  proper  to  pay-  to  hirn^  and  to  jTr^a^u 
Tvorship  him  as  Lord  of  all  ;  as  a  Being  whom  God  hath         -^ 
seen  fit  to  "  exalt  with  his  own  right  hand  j"  and  as  one 
in  whom  God,  by  all  his  fulness,  dwells. 

And  how.  Sir,  can  we  be  in  subjection  to  God,  unless  we 
cheerfully  "  bow  the  knee*'*  to  the  Son,  and  acknowledge 
him  to  be  "  Lord^  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father  T"*  The 
"worship  paid  to  the  Son  is  called  Divine  ;  not  because  it  is 
divinely  required  ;  but  because  in  my  view  the  Son  is  a 
Divine  Person  ;  a  Person  of  Divine  Origin  and  Dignity^ 
of  Divine  Fulness  and  Authority. 

If  you.  Sir,  are  surprized  to  find  me  thus  approving  the 
idea  of  paying  Divine  honors  to  two  distinct  objects^  will 
you  not  be  still  more  surprized,  should  it  be  demonstrated, 
that,  on  your  theory.  Divine  honors  mu3t  be  paid  to  three 
distinct  objects  ? 

Your  theory  supposes  throe  self-existent  Persons  ;  and 
these  three  distinct  Persons  you  consider  as  three  distinct 
Agents  ;  and  each  of  these  three  distinct  Agents  you  con- 


112         On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  ofChri^, 

sider  as  an  object  of  Divine  worship.  As  you  disavow  the 
idea  of  three  Gods,  it  would  be  ungenerous  to  accuse  you 
of  worshipping  three  distinct  Gods,  But,  that  you  profess  to 
worship  three  distinct  objects,  as  God,  how  can  vou  in  truth  de- 
ny? Is  not  every  distinct  Person  or  Agent  a  distinct  object  of 
contemplation  ?  And  are  not  three  distinct  Persons  as 
clearly  three  distinct  objects  as  three  trees  f  Is  it  possible 
for  you,  or  any  other  man,  to  form  an  idea  of  three  distinct 
Persons  which  does  not  include  three  distinct  objects  P 

It  has,  Sir,  been  urged,  on  your  side  of  the  question, 
that  we  can  easily  conceive  of  the  FiTHf  R  as  one  distinct 
Person,  of  the.S'Oiv  ?is  another  distinct  Person,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  a  third  distinct  Person  ;  and  the  difficulty 
is,  to  conceive  how  these  three  distinct  Persons  can  be  but 
one  Being,  or  one  God,  This  part  of  the  hypothesis  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  mysterious  ^nd  totally  inconceivable,^^ 
Your  worship,  therefore,  must  be  paid  to  the  three  Persons 
as  to  three  distinct  objects  ;  for  if  you  worship  the  three 
Persons  at  all,  you  must  worship  them  according  to  youi' 
conceptions,  and  not  according  to  what  you  do  not  conceive*- 
If  you  have  no  conception  of  the  three,  otherwise  than  as 
three  distinct  Persons,  you  can  have  no  conception  of  them 
otherwise  than  as  three  distinct  objtcts. 

From  my  own  experience  as  an  Athanasian,  suffer  me 
to  appeal.  Sir,  to  your  conscience,  whether  you  ever  did 
conceive  of  the  i^flM^r  and  the -S'o/z  otherwise  than  as  two 
distinct  objects.  When  you  address  the  Father,  and  ask 
favors  through  the  mediation  of  his  Son,  do  you  not  con^* 
ceive  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  two  distinct  objects  t 
And  do  you  not  consider  yourself  as  addressing  one  of  the 
distinct  objects,  and  not  the  other  ?  When  you  address  a 
prayer  directly  to  the  Son,  as  the  Head  of  the  church,  do 
you  not  conceive  of  fiiM  as  an  object  distinct  from  the  Fa- 
ther ?  And  when  you  consider  the  three  Persons  as  one 
God,  do  you  not  consider  them  as  being  as  disti?ictly  thr'  E 

OBJECTS  as  THREE  MEMBERS  of  ONE  CoUNCIL  ?     MorCOVer, 

do  you  not  love  the  Son  of  God  as  a  distinct  object  from  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  as  a  distinct  object  from  the  Son  ? 
If  ybu  speaA  of  the  thrte  Persons  as  three  objects,  if  you 
Conceive  of  them  as  three  objects^  and  if  you  love  them  as 
three  distinct  objects,  is  it  not  undeniable. that  you  worship 
them  as  three  objects  P 


On  the  real  Dkinky  and  Glory  ofChrlsU  113 

if  you  say  that  worshipping  one  of  the  three  13  Wor- 
shipping the  whole,  why  are  you  not  satisfied  with  the  wor- 
ship of  Socinians  ?  They  profess  to  worship  one  of  the 
three^  as  possessing  all  possible  perfection.  But  with  this 
you  are  not  satisfied.  And  why  not  ?  Because,  in  your 
view,  the  other  two  Persons  are  neglected  and  treated  with 
dishonor.  The  other  two  Persons,  you  say,  are  worthy  of 
the  same  honors  as  the  Father.  And  does  it  not  appear  from 
this,  that  you  consider  three  distinct  objects  as  worthy  of 
Divine  honors  ?  Besides,  is  it  not  a  common  thing  for 
writers  and  preachers  to  take  pains  to  prove  that  each  of 
the  three  Persons  are  worthy  of  equal  honors  ?  And  are 
they  not  fond  of  using  expressions  of  this  import  in  prayer  ? 
Is  it  not,  then,  evident,  that  they  do  consider  the  three 
distinct  Persons  as  three  distinct  objects  P  When  we  have 
but  one  object  in  view,  we  do  not  say  equal  honors  are  due 
to  that  object  ;  it  is,  then,  in  view  of  three  distinct  objects 
that  they  say  that  e<7?/a/ honors  are  due  to  the  Father^  the 
Son^  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  jvery  time  they  say  this, 
they  implicitly  say  there  are  three  distinct  objects  equullt/ 
worthy  of  Divine  honors. 

On  due  reflection.  Sir,  must  you  not  be  sensible,  that  as 
often  as  you  worship  three  distinct  Persons^  you  worship 
three  distinct  objects  V  And  that  it  is  impossible  for  a  hu- 
man mind  to  conceive  of  three  distinct  Persons^  otherwise 
than  as  three  distinct  objects  P    l 

Now,  Sir,  is  it  not  clearly  evinced  that  your  theory  does 
imply  the  worsTiip  of  three  distinct  objects  as  God  P  Yet  to 
fix  upon  you  the  charge  of  worshippuig  three  Gods,  is  not 
in  my  heart ;  doubtless  while  you  worship  the  three  distinct 
objects,  you  do  it  conscientiously,  believing  that,  in  some 
mysterious,  inconceivable  manner,  these  three  distinct  ob- 
jects are  so  united  as  to  be  but  one  God.  Such  was  the  case 
with  me,  and  such  it  is  believed  is  the  case  with  you. 

Suppose  a  venerable  council,  composed  of  A,  B,  and  C, 
by  whose  benevolence  you  have  been  benefitted — You  ad- 
dress to  them  a  letter  of  gratitude — In  the  first  place  you 
address  them  as  one  body  or  council;  then  you  distinctly 
thank  A,  as  moderator,  for  proposing  the  plan  ;  you  thank 
S,  as  an  advocate^  who  has  exposed  himself  to  insults  for 
your  sake  ;  you  thank  C,  for  some  special  agency  in  carry- 
ing into  effect  the  result  of  counc  1 — You  then  conclude 
with  an  ascription  of  efj^ical  thanks  to  Ay  B,  and  C,  as  on© 
P 


114         Oti  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ* 

council.     Let  me  ask,  have  you  not  distinctly  addressed 
three  distinct  objects  ?  1 

Is  it  not,  then,  in  vain  to  pretend  that  you  worship  but 
one  object^  while  you,  in  your  prayers,  distinctly  name  itiREEy 
and  thank  each  for  some  distinct  agency  ? 


LETTER  IX, 

The  two  Theories  compared^  in  respect  to  Christy  considered 
as  a  SuFFiRhR  on  the  Cross,  as  the  Savior  of  the  World, 
and  the  Lord  of  the  Universe, 

REV   SIR, 

PERHAPS  it  may  be  useful  to  enter  into  a  more  criti- 
cal examination  of  your  theory,  as  it  respects  the  character 
of  HIM  by  whom  the  atonement  was  made  for  the  sins  of 
the  world. 

For  the  purpose  of  exam'nation,  let  it  be  admitted  as 
true,  that  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two  self-existent  and 
co-equal  Persons,  and  that  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  im- 
plies his  union  to  such  a  proper  Man  as  vqu  suppose  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  to  have  been.  L^t  us  in  the  next  place  make 
the  supposition,  that  the  Man  Jesus  had  been  united  to  the 
Father  instead  of  the  Son,  in  as  strict  a  manner  as  it  is  pos- 
sible that  God  and  Man  should  be  united.  If  the  Father 
be  equal  to  the  Son,  a  union  of  the  Man  to  the  Father  wou'd 
imply  precisely  the  same  dign"ty  as  a  union  with  the  Son, 
Then  suppose,  that  in  that  state  of  union  with  the  Father, 
the  Man  Jesus  had  suffered  on  the  cross ;  would  not  his 
sufferings  have  been  of  precisely  the  same  value  as  an  atone- 
ment^  as  in  the  case  of  his  suffering  in  union  with  the  second 
Person  ?     This,  it  is  presumed,  you  wil  not  deny. 

Permit  me  now  to  ask,  whether  the  sufferings  and  death 
o^  t\\iA.t  Mail,  could,  with  any  propriety,  be ':alled  the  5Z(/^ 
ferings  and  death  of  God  the  Father  ? — Moreover,  as  on 
your  theory  the  value  of  the  sufferings  of  the  cross  results 
not  from  the  dignity  of  the  real  sufferer,  but  from  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Person  to  whom  the  Man  was  united,  we  will 
further  suppose,  that  this  Man,  in  a  state  of  union  with  the 
Father,  was  called  the  Son  of  God  ;  would  not  the  atone- 
ment for  the  sins  of  the  world  have  been  precisely  the  same 


On  the  real  Dvoinity  and  Glory  of  Christ*         115 

that  it  IS  on  your  hypothesis  ?  The  sufferer  would  be 
precisely  the  same,  and  the  Person  with  whom  the  Man 
was  united  would  be  of  precisely  the  same  dignity.  And, 
on  this  supposition,  wou'd  there  not  be  a  far  greater  pro- 
priety in  saying  that  the  Son  of  God  died  for  us,  than  there 
is  on  vours  ?  If  that  Man  united  with  the  Father  shou  d 
be  called  the  So7i  of  God,  and  did  i  jally  lay  down  his  life 
for  us,  it  might  then  be  a  truth  that  a  Son  of  God  did  die 
for  us.  But  on  your  theory,  what  propriety  could  there 
be  in  such  a  representation,  any  farther  than  the  3Ian  is 
considered  as  the  Son  of  God  t  But  as  you  consider  the 
Son  of  God  as  having  complete  existence^  and  even  self- 
existence^  distinct  from  the  Man^  the  incarnation  implied 
a  union  of  two  intelligent  Beings,  as  properly  so  as  Gabriel 
and  Adnm.  The  first  of  these  '^  suffered  not  in  the  least,'* 
but  on  the  Man  was  laid  the  iniquities  of  us  all. 

What  then.  Sir,  is  the  differen^^e  in  the  character  of  him 
who  really  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree,  con- 
sidered on  your  theory,  or  on  the  Socinian  theory  ?  You 
may  indeed  suppose  the  Man  to  be  more  intimately  united 
to  God,  than  is  supposed  by  Socinians.  But  a  second  self- 
existent  Person,  or  even  a  pre-existent  Son  of  God,  suffer- 
ed no  more  according  to  your  theory  than  according  to 
theirs.  The  sufferings,  on  both  theories,  Ivere  all  really 
enduredhy  an  intelligent  be  ng,  a  proper  M:n^  whose  first 
existence  began  less  than  forty  years  before  his  death ;  a 
man  who  never  had  possessed  even  the  shadow  of  pre- 
ex^tent  dignity,  riches,  or  glory,  and  who  was  in  no  higher 
sense  the  Son  of  God,  than  Abraham  or  Moses.  You  may 
indeed  say,  that "  the  Man  Jesus  was  united  to  the  Person 
of  the  Son  of  God  ;"  but  this  very  assertion  implies  that 
the  Son  and  the  3Ian  were  two  distinct  intelligences ;  and 
that  the  Man  was  not  truly  the  Son  of  God,  but  another 
intelligent  being  united  to  the  Person  of  the  Son  of  God. 

Suffer  me  now.  Sir,  in  an  impartial  manner,  to  exhibit 
ill  contrast,  the  different  theories  we  have  adopted,  as  they 
respect  the  character  of  Him  who  was  really  slain  for  us, 
and  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree. 

On  your  part,  the  case  stands  thus.  The  sufferings  of 
the  cross  were  wholly  endured  by  a  Man^  who  was  some- 
how mysteriously  united  to  2  second  self-existent  Person, 
whom  you  call  the  Son  of  God.  Yet  this  Person  you  call 
the  Sou  of  Godj  endured  no  share  in  the  sufferings  of  the 


116  On  the  real  Dhinztt/  and  Glory  of  Christ^ 

cross  ;  the  Man  only  suffered  and  died.  This  re  'I  suff'erer' 
had  never  enjoyed  one  moment  of  pre-existent  dignity  or 
glorv.  He  knew  nothing  what  it  was  to^be  in  the  Father's 
bosom  ;  and  as  he  never  had  been  rich,  he  knew  nothii^g 
what  it  was  to  become  poor ^  in  any  other  sense  than  is  known 
by  other  poor  children  who  are  born  into  the  world.  His 
^' being  born,  and  that  in  a  low  condition,'*  was  a  matter 
to  which  he  had  never  consented.  He  lived,  indeed,  a  life 
perfectlv  ex;emplar\',  and  died  a  death  truly  distressing. 
But  ths  Son^  to  whom  you  suppose  this  Man  was  united, 
was  so  far  from  sharing  a  part  in  the  suffering  of  the  cross, 
that  he  only  enabled  the  Man  to  hear  a  greater  portion  of 
sufferings  than  he  would  otherwise  have  been  able  to  endure. 
But  can  this  circumstance  be  considered  as  any  real  favor 
to  the  Man  ?  And  indeed.  Sir,  can  you  see  that  this  Man 
ever  received  the  least  benefit  from  a  union  with  your  sup' 
^o-yc"^  self-existent  Sr;n,  from  the  time  he  was  born  in  the 
manger,  to  the  moment  he  expired  on  the  cross  ?  So  far 
as  the  inspired  writings  have  informed  me,  this  Man  de- 
rived all  the  benefits  v/hich  he  did  derive,  from  God  the 
Father.  And  why  should  it  be  thought  to  contribute  great- 
ly to  the  dignity  of  this  Man  to  be  united  to  a  Person  from 
whom  he  derived  no  manner  of  assistance,  or  support,  un- 
less it  were  to  enable  him  to  endure  a  greater  portion  of 
real  s^iffi- rings  ? 

On  the  other  hypothesis,  the  sufferer  on  the  cross  was  a 
very  different  character — He  was  truly  the  Son  of  the  liv' 
^ing  God^  had  long  been  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father  be#jre 
the  foundations  of  the  earth  were  laid,  "  as  one  brought  up 
with  him,  and  was  daily  his  delight."  He  was  highly  hon- 
ored by  the  Father  in  the  great  work  of  creation  ;  for  God 
created  all  things  by  him..  In  him  it  pleased  the  Father 
that  all  fulness  should  dvveU.  He  was  as  intimately  united 
to  the  Father,  as  it  is  possible  the  Man  Jesus  should  be,  on 
your  theory,  to  a  second  self-existent  Person.  He  wa? 
honored  by  the  Father  as  the  Angel  of  his  Presence  on  the 
most  solemn  and  interesting  occasions,  and  was  tru  y  in  the 
lORM  OF  God  :  for  he  was  the  "  image  of  the  invisible 
God."  But  while  in  this  state  of  pre-existent  glory,  he  be- 
h^'ld  our  perishing  state  ;  he  saw  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
of  g'^ats  was  not  sufficient  to  take  away  sin  ;  and  he  said  to 
his  Father,  "  Sacrifice  and  offering  thou  wouldst  not,  but  a 
:body  hast  thou  prepared  me"— ^*  Lo  I  come  to  do  thy  ^s\\\ 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ,         117 

O  God."  He  laid  aside  the  form  or  God,  and  volunta- 
rily became  united  to  the  body  which  God  had  prepared, 
and  was  thus  "  made  in  the  likeness  of  men*'''  ''  And  being 
found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  Such, 
Sir,  is  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world.  This  is  the  character,  in  view  of  which,  ten  thou- 
sand times  ten  thousand  tongues  sing,  Worthy  is  the  Lamb 
that  zvas  slain* 

Having  thus  carried  out  the  two  accounts,  let  us  cast 
them  up,  that  we  may  clearly  see  the  disparity.  And  as 
you  cannot  deny  that  as  much  dignity  may  be  derived  from 
a  union  with  the  one  God^  the  Father,  as  from  a  union  with 
a  second  self-existent  Person  ;  in  respect  to  the  character 
of  the  real  sufftrer^  the  case  will  stand  thus  : 

On  your  part,  the  sufferer  is  a  Man  with  such  dignity  as 
he  may  derive  from  a  union  with  a  second  self  existent  Per^ 
son. 

On  my  part,  the  sufferer  is  that  glorious  Son,  by  whom 
God  created  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth,  possessing  all 
the  dignity  which  can  result  from  the  most  perfect  union 
with  the  one  God,  the  Father, 

The  difference,  then,  in  the  character  of  the  sufferer,  is, 
at  least,  as  great  as  all  the  difference  between  the  constitute' 
ed  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  the  mere  Man  or  hu' 
pian  nature  of  your  Messiah. 

You  have.  Sir,  too  much  candor  to  deny,  that  the  real 
sufferer  is  a  character  of  unspeakably  greater  importance  on 
this  theory,  than  on  yours.  But  still  you  may  think,  that 
Christ,  considered  as  a  complex  object,  or  character,  as  the 
Savior  and  Lord  of  all,  is  greater  on  your  hypothesis  than 
he  is  on  mine.  1  his,  however,  may  appear  to  be  only 
imagination. 

We  are  perfectly  agreed  In  one  point,  viz.  That  there  is 
but  one  infnite  self  existent  God,  In  your  view,  this  infi' 
nite  God  consists  of  three  self  existent  Persons  ;  in  my  view, 
the  one  infinite  God  is  but  one  self  existent  Person,  The 
one  Person,  then,  on  my  theory,  must  be  equal  to  the 
three  Persons  of  your  theory,  in  regard  io  fulness  and  suf- 
ficiency. In  your  view,  o^ze  of  the  ?Ar^^  self-existent  Per- 
sons is  united  to  the  Man  or  human  nature,  and  this  self- 
existent  Person  and  the  Man  are  the  Savior  and  Lord  of  all 
r-In  my  view,  the  Savior  and  Lord  of  all  is  the  Son  of  the 


118  On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ, 

living  God^  and  by  nature  "  the  brightness  of  the  Father'*s 
glory,  and  the  express  image  of  his  Person  ;'*  so  united  to 
the  one  injimte  God^  that  in  him  dwel^,  not  merely  one  of 
three  Persons,  but  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily. 

As,  in  your  view,  the  Godhead  consists  of  three  distinct 
Persons,  each  possessing  independent  fulness  ;  and  as  but 
one  of  these  Persons  is  supposed  to  be  united  to  the  Man 
Jesus  ;  inquiry  might  be  made,  whether  your  the«-;ry  does 
not  naturally  suggest  the  idea,  that  there  is  but  one  third  o£ 
the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  implied  in  the  complex  character 
of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  But  it  is  needless  to 
urge  th^s.  And  on  the  ground  already  stated,  the  matter 
is  submitted  to  every  impartial  mind,  whether  the  character 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  does  not  appear  vastly  more  impressive 
and  glorious  on  the  theory  now  proposed,  than  on  the 
Athanasian  hypothesis. 

It  may  possibly  be  urged  by  some,  that  if  Christ  derived 
his  existence  from  God,  as  a  Son  from  a  Father^  he  must 
be  as  incapable  of  suffering  as  the  Father.  This  conclusion 
is  not  admitted  as  resulting  from  the  premises.  But  it 
would  sooner  be  admitted  that  it  is  possible  with  God  to 
render  himself  C2c^^h\^  of  suffering  by  union  with  a  human 
bodv,  than  that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  sufftr  on  the  cross. 
IVIy  knowledge  of  the  Nature  of  God  and  his  Son  is  all  de- 
rived from  the  Bible.  This  informs  me,  that  Christ  is 
God's  own  Son  ;  and  that  "  though  he  were  a  Son,  yet 
learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered.'* 
And  who  is  so  well  skilled  in  the  philosophy  of  Divine  Na- 
ture^ as  to  be  able  to  contradict  this  testimony  in  either 
particular  ?  Is  it  not  more  safe  for  us  to  receive  the  Divine 
testimony  as  stated  in  the  Scriptures,  than  to  reject  it  by 
philosophizing  on  unrevealed  properties  of  Divine  Na-? 

TURE? 

How  often.  Sir,  have  our  brethren,  on  your  side,  urged 
our  ignorance  of  the  Divine  Nature,  as  a  reason  why  we 
should  not  reject  revealed  doctrines  concerning  God  and  his 
Son  ?  And  yet,  have  not  the  same  brethren,  on  the  ground 
of  their  supposed  knowledge  of  the  Divine  Nature,  im- 
plicitly denied  and  explained  away  two  of  the  plainest  truths 
which  are  contained  in  the  Bible  ?  Are  there,  Sir,  any  two 
propositions  more  clearly  affirmed  in  the  Scriptures,  than 
these,  viz.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  God's  Son  j  and,  that  the 
Son  of  God  suffered  and  died  on  the  cross  I     Yet  how  ma- 


On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ         11& 

jiy  millions  of  pages  have  been  written,  and  how  many 
millions  of  sermons  have  been  preached,  to  prove  that  Je- 
sus Christ  is  so  far  from  being  properly  the  Son  of  God, 
that  he  is  the  very  God,  the  vf.ry  Being,  whose  Son  the 
Scriptures  declare  him  to  be  !  Yea,  the  vfry  Being  who 
proclaimed  from  heaven,  "  This  is  7ny  beloved  Son  /'*  And 
have  not  the  numerous,  plain,  and  unequivocal  representa- 
tions of  Scripture,  respecting  the  sufferings  and  denth  of 
the  Son  of  God,  been  so  explained  away  as  to  imply  no 
more  than  that  a  Man  or  mere  human  nature  suff'ered  2Xi(i 
diedy  to  whom  the  Son  of  God  was  mysteriously  united  ? 
And  what  is  all  this.  Sir,  short  oi philosophizing  upon  Di- 
vine Nature,  and  drawing  conclusions  at  an  extraordi- 
nary rate  ?  Would  Gabriel  himself  pretend  to  so  much 
knowledge  of  Divine  Nature  as  thus  to  contradict  Di- 
vine Revelation? 

Though  I  may  have  been  accused  of  being  "  too  mathe^ 
tnatical  for  the  Bible,"  yet  it  is  my  desire  never  to  be  so 
philosophical  as  to  prefer  my  own  deductions  from  Ja?icied 
properties  of  the  Divine  Nature,  to  the  most  explicit  de- 
clarations of  the  Word  of  God.  But  whi'e  thus  disapproving 
the  conduct  of  my  brethren,  the  Monitor  w-thin  whispers. 
Such  has  been  thy  own  inconsistency ;  and,  perhaps,  as 
great  inconsisten  y,  in  some  other  point,  still  lurks  undis- 
covered— "  Let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take  heed 
lest  he  fall.''  * 


*  Either  while  asleep,  or  awake,  the  following  scene  has  some- 
times been  presented  to  my  imagination— 

The  writer  of  these  Letters  is  called  before  an  Ecclesiastical 
Council  to  answer  to  a  charge  of  heresy.  The  accusers,  with 
solemn  formality^  present  against  him  the  following  ajTticles  of 
charge : 

1.  He  has  publicly  taught,  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,  God's  OWN  Son. 

2.  He  has  also  taught.  That  the  Son  of  God  did  really  suffer 
on  the  cross,  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 

The  Council  inquire  of  the  accused  in  what  sense  he  under- 
stands those  propositions. 

He  replies.  According  to  the  common  acceptation  and  most 
natural  meaning  of  the  words.  t 

The  result  follows 

•  This  Council  are  of  opinion,  that  the  said  accused  is  guilty  of 
heresy.  For  though  in  some  mysterious  sense^  Christ  is  called 
the  Son  of  God,  yet  he  is  not  the  Son  of  God  according  to  the 
common  acceptation  of  the  term  Son  :  so  far  from  this,  he  is  per- 
sonally the  only  true  Gods  yea,,**jKsus  w  that  GoDy  besides  whom 


120         On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Chrkt: 
POSTSCRIPT. 

SINCE  writing  the  foregoing  Lettfcr,  it  has  occurred  td 
me,  that  there  is  one  mode  of  illustrating  and  supporting 
the  dignity  of  the  sufferer^  which  has  been  adopted  by  some 
Athanasians,  that  has  not  been  partxularly  considered.— 
Asa  woman  of  low  rank  is  exalted  by  marriage  to  a  worthy 
Prince  or  Potentate,  so  it  has  been  supposed  that  the  3Ian 
jfesus  or  the  human  nature  was  exalted  by  union  with  the 
Son  of  God.     Upon  this  hypothesis,  let  it  be  observed, 

1.  When  this  ground  is  taken,  the  dign  ty  of  the  real 
sufferer  is  supposed  to  result  simply  from  union  with  a 
Person  of  infinite  dignity.  The  Queen,  after  marriage, 
takes  rank  from  her  Royal  Husband :  so  it  is  supposed 
that  the  Man  Jesus  is  exalted  by  union  with  the  Son  of 
Gnn.  It  is  true,  that  the  King  and  Queen,  in  a  certain 
sense,  are  one ;  but  not  in  such  a  sense  that  the  obedience 
or  the  death  of  the  Queen  might  be  properly  considered  as 
the  obedience  or  the  death  of  the  King.  And  if  a  King, 
for  a  cert^iin  purpose,  had  engaged  to  obey  and  to  die,  his 
becomng  married  to  a  woman  of  low  rank,  and  causing 
her  to  die  instead  of  himself,  would  not  be  esteemed  very 
honorable  conduct. 


there  is  no  other.'"*  And  though  it  be  represented  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, that  the  Son  of  God  suffered  ;  yet  as  he  is  personally  the 
immutable  God,  it  was  imjioasible  that  He  should  really  suffer. 
The  Man  or  human  nature  suffered,  which  was  united  to  the 
Person  of  the  Son  of  God  :  Tiie  sufferings,  therefore,  are  called 
the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  in  our  view  infinitely  de- 
grading to  Christ,  to  say,  thathe  is//ro/2<?7-/z/ and  tridy  the  Son 
of  God  ;  or  to  say,  that  He  did  really  suffer  the  death  of  the 
cross.'    ..    Thus  far  the  result. 

It  has,  however,  been  intimated  to  me,  that  some  of  our  breth* 
Ten  are  prepared  to  evade  all  I  have  written  on  the  sufferings  of 
the  Son  of  God,  by  saying,  that  they  ever  professed  to  believe 
that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  he  suffered  on  the  cross. 
I  have.  Sir,  aimeci  honestly  to  state  the  real  difference  of  senti- 
ment between  us  on  those  two  points.  If,  in  any  respect,  I  have 
misapprehended  your  theory,  I  shall  rejoice  in  being  corrected. 
And  if  indeed  yoii  do  believe  that  Christ  i«  truly  the  Son  of  God, 
and  that  he  really  suffered  on  tlie  cross,  I  shall  be  happy  in  be- 
ing informed  that  there  is  no  ground  of  controversy  between  us. 
But  if  I  have  not  mistaken  your  theory,  it  is  believed  that  yoa 
have  too  much  generosity  of  soul  and  uprightness  of  heart,  to 
attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  truth  by  a  mere  quibble  upon  words. 


*  Mr,  Jones— jiage  2. 


On  the  real  Divmity  and  Glory  of  Christ*  X2l 

2.  The  Scripture  representation  is,  that  the  Son  o? 
Cod  did  really  abase  himself,  and  become  poor,  for  our 
sakes.  But  on  the  hypothesis  now  before  us,  the  scene  is 
changed — Instead  of  abasing  himself,  and  taking  on  him 
th^form  of  a  servant^  he  took  to  himself  one  who  was  nai» 
urally  in  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  exalted  the  Man  instead 
of  abasii.g  himself — Instead  of  bt  ing  *^  made  in  the  likeness 
of  men,  he  raise!  a  man  to  the  likeness  or  dign  ty  of  God 
—Instead  of  dying  himself  he  caused  the  Man  to  die  to 
whoiii  he  was  united. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  general  idea,  that  the  Son  ot 
God  became  united  to  the  Man  or  human  nature,  that  he 
might  be  in  a  situation  to  obey  and  to  suffer.  And  yet,  on 
your  theory,  it  was  just  as  impossible  that  he  should  obey 
and  suffer  after  the  union  as  it  was  before.  Dr.  Hopkins 
expressly  says,  that  "  this  persona]  union  of  the  Divine  na- 
ture, or  of  God  the  second  Person  in  the  Godhead,  with 
the  human  nature,  does  not  cause  or  suppose  any  change 
in  the  former ;  all  the  change^  or  that  is  changeable^  is  in 
the  human  natureJ^"*  [System,  vol.  I.  p.  411.] — By  "  the 
Divine  nature^  or  God  the  second  Person  in  the  Godhead^* 
the  Doctor  meant  the  Son  of  God,  The  Son  of  God,  there- 
fore, experienced  no  change,  either  in  becoming  unted  to 
the  Man  or  human  nature,  nor  in  consequence  of  this  union 
- — He  was  then  in  precisely  the  same  situation  in  regard  to 
obedience  and  suffering  after  the  union,  that  he  was  before. 
What,  then,  Sir,  has  the  Son  of  God  either  done  or  suf 
fered  for  our  salvation  ?  And  why  wilt  you  pretend  that 
he  became  united  to  a  Man  that  he  nqtight  obey  and  suffer  I 

3.  If  a  mere  Man,  by  virtue  ol  a  union  with  the  Son  of 
God,  might  derive  such  dignity  as  to  atone  for  the  sins  of 
the  world,  it  is  evident  that  the  same  dignity  might  result 
from  the  same  mysterious  union  between  the  s.^me  Mirt 
and  the  Father,  And  as  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  never  spake 
of  his  union  with  a  second  D  vine  Person,  but  often  spake 
of  his  union  with  the  Father,  the  probability  would  be  mu.  h 
in  favor  of  the  idea  that  his  union  was  with  the  Father.— 
If,  then,  the  Socinians  would  only  add  to  their  theory  the 
idea  of  a  mysterious  union  between  the  Man  Christ  jfesus 
and  God  the  Father,  what  would  be  the  difference  between 
your  Savior  a*  d  theirs  ?  It  is  not  in  my  power  to  discern 
that  there  would  be  so  much  as  one  shade  of  difference.-^ 
The  Man  Jesus,  considered  separately  from  his  union  with 


122         On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ* 

the  Godhead,  is  perhaps  as  great  on  their  theory  as  on 
yours ;  Hor  will  you  pretend  that  the  Son  is  greater  thau 
the  Father.  If  the  Socinians  would  ohly  annex  that  one 
idea  to  their  theory,  it  does  not  appear  that  you  would  have 
the  least  ground  to  dispute  with  them  about  the  greatness 
of  the  Savior,  however  much  you  might  dispute  about 
the  number  of  self-existejjt  Persons. — Be  not,  Sir,  of- 
fended at  this  comparison  :  my  aim  here  is  simply  to 
urge  you  to  inquiry,  and  to  a  thorough  examination  of  your 
own  theory. 


PART  III. 


ON  THE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  HOLT  SPIRIT. 


LETTER  L 


By  the  Holy  Spirit  i9  intended  the  same  as  the  Fulness  of  the 

Godhead, 

REV.  SIR, 

HAVING  stated  to  you  my  views  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Ghost  will  now  be  con- 
sidered. On  this  point  the  Oracles  of  God  are  our  only 
guide  ;  and  to  their  dictates  it  behoves  us  to  submit  with 
reverence. 

You  will  not  consider  me  insensible  of  my  accountability 
to  God  in  regard  to  all  my  writings  :  nor  can  you  reason- 
ably view  me  as  haying  any  interest  to  promote,  aside  from 
the  promotion  of  Truth. 

If  your  views  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  according  to  truth, 
certainly  there  can  be  nothing  for  me  to  gain  by  advancing 
and  advocating  a  different  hypothesis  ;  unless  it  may  be  for 
my  advantage  to  expose  myself  to  censure  and  reproach. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  my  views  are  according  to  truth, 
it  is  as  important  for  you,  as  it  is  for  me,  to  understand  and 
admit  them. 

Your  having  so  great  a  majority  of  the  Christian  world 
on  your  side,  is  not  sufficient  to  secure  to  you  the  approba-  - 
tion  of  God.— Be  entreated  to  keep  these  things  in  mind, 
while  you  read  and  reflect  on  the  important  subject  now 
before  us. 

From  what  you  have  already  seen  on  the  character  of 
God  and  his  Son,  you  have  doubtless  concluded,  that  in  my 
view  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  self-existent  Person.     You 


124  On  the  Character  of  the  Hcly  SpiriU 

•will  now  see,  that  in  mv  view  the  Haly  Spirit  is  comprc-. 
h'-ndi-d  in  the  self-existi-nce  of  Jehovah,  J3ut  xvithout  distinct 
personality.  The  terms  Holy  Spirit,  or  Holv  Ghost,  as 
used  in  Scripture,  do  not  appear  to  me  intended  to  express 
another  Person  besides  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  yet,  to  my 
understanding,  tht  se  terms  convey  an  dea  of  that  which  is 
of  no  li'ss  estimation.  It  is  that  in  God,  by  which  he  is  able 
to  do  good  and  communicate,  either  immediateIy,or  through 
the  instrumenta  ity  of  other  agents. 

-By  the  Holv  Ghost,  radically  considered,  the  same  is 

tmderstood  as  by  the  phrase,  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead.  Yet 

the  terms  Holy  Spirit^    ire,  it  is  thaught,  most  commonly 

app'ied  to  the  productive,  e^cient  emanations  of  Divine 

fulness. 

The  following  phrases  appear  to  be  perfectly  svnoRV-. 
jnous — The  Holy  Ghost — the  Holy  Spirit — the  Spirit  of 
God — the  Spirit  of  the  Lord — the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God — 
the  Spirit  of  the  Father.  That  these  are  synonymous,  will 
probably  not  be  denied  by  any  person  well  acquainted  with 
the  Scriptures.  And  should  any  one  be  disposed  to  deny 
3t,  the  idea  may  be  fairly  established  by  comparing  Scrips 
ture  with  Scripture. 

My  ideas  of  the  Spirit  may  be  better  understood  by  a 
little  attention  to  some  Scripture  metaphors  — God  is  rep- 
resentcd  bv  the  metaphor  of  the  natural  Sun.  "  The  Lord 
God  is  a  Sun."  Tin  n  the  rays  of  light  and  heat,  which 
emaciate  or  proceed  from  the  sun,  are  an  emblem  of  the 
*'•  tJoly  Spirit  zvhichproceedeth from  the  Father, ^^  Like  the 
rays  of  the  sun,  these  Divine  emanations  of  the  fulness  of 
God,  illuminate^  quicken^  vivigorate,  2ini\  fructify. 

God  is  also  represented  as  a  Fountain  of  living  waters. 
If  we  consider  the  Fountain  as  in  the  earth,  then  the  effu- 
sions or  streams  which  proceed  from  the  Fountain  may 
represent  the  Holy  Spirit,  But  if  \^^  consider  the  Foun- 
tain as. a  launtain  of  vapor  in  the  air,  then  the  showers  of 
•rain  or  dew  will  properly  represent  the  emanations  of  Di' 
vine  fulness. 

Bv  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  not,  in  my 
view,  intended  any  one  attribute  merely,  but  all  those  at- 
tributes which  are  implied  in  the  FULNESS  or  ALL-SUFFI- 
CxENCY  of  the  Godhead. 

Beibre  an  attempt  to  explain  those  texts  pf  Scripture 
which  have  been  supposed  to  import  that  tne  Spirit  of  God 


On  the  Character  t)fthe  Holy  Spirrt.  133r  : 

is  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  it  may 
b^  well  to  exhibit  a  part  of  the  considerations  which  have 
had  influence  on  my  mind  in  favor  of  giving  up  that  opin- 
ion. 

1,  It  has  appeared  to  me  inconsistent  to  suppose  that 
the  Spirit  should  be  both  a  self-existent  Person  and  the 
Spirit  of  a  Person  ;  yet  the  Spirit  is  perhaps  spoken  of  as 
the  Spirit  of  a  Person  twentv  times  to  its  bein^  once  spok* 
en  of  as  though  it  were  a  distinct  Person.  There  are  in- 
deed several  instances  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is  personi- 
fied or  spoken  of  as  it  would  be  natural  to  speak  of  a  Per- 
son ;  but  the  number  of  these  instances  is  much  less  than 
was  expected  previous  to  inquiry.  And  it  is  observable 
that  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man  is  also  several  times  pttrsoni- 
fied  in  the  Bible,  and  spoken  of  as  though  it  were  some- 
thing distinct  from  the  man  ;  or  as  though  the  man  and  his 
spirit  were  two  persons.  Instances  ot  this  are  perhaps 
nearly  as  numerous  as  the  instances  in  which  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  personified.  But  it  ought  to  be  distinctiv  noted, 
that  when  we  have  become  habituated  to  the  idea  that  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  intended  a  Person^  the  idea  of  a  Person 
will  immediately  arise  in  our  minds^  upon  hearing  or  see- 
ing the  words  Holy  Spirit  or  Holy  Ghost.  So  if  we  had 
been  taught  from  our  infancy  that  the  natural  sun  is  a  per- 
son, then  we  should  think  of  it  as  such  whenever  it  should 
come  into  view.  This  may  account  for  its  having  been 
supposed  that  there  is  much  in  the  Scriptures  in  favor  of 
the  distinct  personalitN'  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  general,  throughout  the  Bible,  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
spoken  of  as  the  spirit  of  a  person,  just  as  we  speak  of  the 
spirit  of  man  as  the  spirit  of  a  person  ;  and  in  the  same 
inanner  as  the  sacred  writers  speak  of  the  attributes  of  God ; 
not  as  distmct  Persons,  but  as  something  o/'a  Person,  or 
in  a  Person,  or  belonging  to  a  Person.  The  inspired  wri- 
ters speak  of  the  Spirit  of  Man,  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord,  the  Wisdom  of  God,  the  Power  of 
God,  the  Goodness  of  God,  and  the  Will  of  God. 

We  may  also  observe,  that  when  God  speaks  of  the 
Spirit,  he  says,  "  7ny  Spirit,"  just  as  he  says,  "  my  Power,'* 
"  my  Goodness,"  &c.  These  and  similar  forms  of  speech^ 
respecting  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  very  numerous  in  the  Bi- 
ble, and  they  naturally  convey  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  not  a  distinct  Person,  but  the  Spirit  of  a  Person  j 


^26  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit* 

as  naturally  as  the  forms  of  speech  respecting  Wisdom, 
Power,  and  Goodness,  convey  the  idea  that  they  are  at* 
tributes  of  a  Person,  and  not  so  many^dist'nct  Persons. 

If  it  were  admitted,  that  the  term  God  means  three  self- 
existent  Persons^  even  on  that  supposition  the  phrase,  the 
Spirit  ofGod^  would  not  imply  that  the  Spirit  is  one  of  those 
Persons,  but  it  would  be  the  Spirit  of  three  Persons. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  self-existent  Person  distinct 
from  the  Father,  it  is  doubdess  an  important  truth,  and  one 
l^hich  we  should  not  expect  would  have  been  unrevealed 
ut\til  the  taking  place  of  the  Gospel  dispensation.  Yet  may 
it  not  be  said  with  safety',  that  there  is  no  more  evidence 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Ho- 
ly Spirit,  than  there  is  of  the  distinct  personality  of  the 
Power  of  God,  or  the  Knowledge  of  God,  or  the  Goodness 
^ffir^  of  God  t  %n  foK  as  before  observed,  the  Spirit  is  uniform- 
ly spoken  of  as  something  belonging  to  God,  and  not  as  a 
distinct  Person. 

The  phrases  "  the  Spirit  of  God,"  "  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,"  "  my  Spirit,"  "  thy  Spirit,"  "  his  Spirit,"  are  the 
usual  phrases  by  which  the  H.jly  Ghost  is  represented  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  terms,  "  the  Holy  Ghost,"  are 
not,  I  think,  to  be  found  in  it.  The  terms.  Holy  Spirit, 
are  found  three  times  ;  and  in  each  of  those  instances  it  is 
spoken  of  as  the  spirit  of  a  person,  and  not  as  being  a  self- 
existent  Person.  "  Take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me." 
*'  And  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit'^ — "  And  put  his  Holy  Spirit 
within  him."  Unless,  then,  the  saints  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament had  some  evidence  which  has  not  come  to  us,  was 
it  possible  that  they  shou  d  believe  that  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
or  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  intended  an  independent  Person 
co-eternal  with  the  Father  ? 

The  manner  of  representing  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Old 
Testament  is  common  in  the  New. — We  often  read,  in  the 
New  Testament,  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  ;  we  also  read  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  and  his 
Holy  Spirit. 

Some  writers,  if  I  have  not  misunderstood  them,  have 
been  disposed  to  make  a  distinction  between  what  they  call 
"  the  personal  Spirit,"  and  the  Spirit  of  God  or  the  ema-* 
nations  of  Divine  fulness  ;  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  find 
any  ground  for  this  distinction.  That  which  is  called  the 
Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  in  one  place,  is 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  l2f 

called  the  Holy  Ghost  in  another.  In  the  prophecy  of 
Isaiah,  we  have  several  predictions  respecting  the  Son  of 
God,  and  his  being  endued  with  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord— 
*'  I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him" — "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
God  is  upon  me,"  &c.  These  predictions  were  fulfilled 
on  the  day  of  Christ's  baptism,  when  the  Holy  Ghost 
descended  upon  him.  Matthew  says,  '*  the  Spirit  of  God 
descended  :"  Mark  and  John  simply  say,  "  the  Spirit 
descended  ;"  but  Luke,  in  giving  the  same  account,  says, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  descended."  From  these  passages  it  is 
evident,  that  "  the  Spirit,"  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  "  the 
Spirit  of  God,"  and  "  the  Holy  Ghost,"  mean  the  same 
thing.  Moreover,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  th^ 
Apostles  in  such  an  extraordinary  manner,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  Peter  in  his  sermon  said,  "  This  is  that  which 
tras  spoken  of  by  the  prophet  Joel,  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  that  I  will  pour  out  of  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 

There  is  another  class  of  parallel  texts  which  may  help 
us  to  some  correct  ideas  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  Christ 
sent  forth  his  disciples  to  preach,  he  forewarned  them  that 
they  should  be  brought  before  Governors  and  Kings  for  his 
sake.  "  But,"  said  he,  "  when  they  deliver  you  up,  take 
no  thought  how  or  what  ye  shall  speak  ;  for  it  shall  be  giv- 
en you  in  that  same  hour  what  ye  shall  speak  :  for  it  is  not 
ye  that  speak,  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  which  speaketh 
in  you."  [Matt.  x.  19,  20.]  This  is  Matthew's  represen- 
tation.—Mark  expresses  the  same  thing  thus,  "  For  it  is 
not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost."  [Mark  xiii.  11.]— 
Luke  says,  "  For  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  teach  you  in  the 
\  Same  hour  what  ye  ought  to  say."  [xii.  12.]  And  Luke, 
in  another  place,  repeats  this,  or  a  similar  promise  of 
^rist,  in  these  words,  "  For  I  will  give  you  a  mouth, 
and  wisdom,  which  all  your  adversaries  shall  not  be  able 
to  gansay  nor  resist."  [ch.  xxi.  15.]  From  these  several 
passages  compared,  it  clearly  appears,  that  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  the  same  thing  ;  that  the 
Spirit  of  the  Father  speaking  in  them,  the  Holy  Ghost's 
speaking,  the  Holy  Ghost's  teaching  them  what  they  ought 
,  to  speak,  and  Christ's  giving  them  a  mouth  and  wisdom, 
are  all  of  the  same  import  ;  and  that  the  sum  of  the 
promise  to  the  Apostles  was,  that  they  should  be  eAdued 


^28  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit* 

Vrith     supernatural    stifficiency     or    assistance    on    such 
occasions. 

2.  That  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  Snirit  of  God,  is  not  a 
distinct  Person,  may  appear  from  a  number  of  other  terms 
ivhich  are  used  as  svnonymous. 

The  breath  of  the  Lord  is  used  as  synonymous  with  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord.  The  wicked  are  rt  presented  as  con- 
srmed  both  bv  the  "  breath  of  the  Lord,"  and  by  the 
♦*  Spirit  of  the  Lord" — "  By  the  blast  of  God  they  perish, 
and  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth  are  they  consumed" — "  And 
then  shall  that  wicked  be  revealed  whom  the  Lord  shall 
consume  with  the  Spirit  of  his  mouthJ*'^  Moreover,  as  an 
emblem  of  giving  the  Spirit^  Christ  breathed  on  his  dis- 
ciples, and  said,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost." 

The  HAND  of  the  Lord  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  are 
used  as  synonymous.  *'  So  the  Spirit  of  th>.-  Lord  lifted 
me  up,  and  took  me  away — but  the  hand  of  the  Lord  was 
Strong  upon  me" — ^'  B''  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the 
heavens  ;  his  hand  hath  formt-d  the  crooked  serpent"-^— 
*'  The  heavens  are  the  work  of  thv  hand'''' — "•  And  the  hand 
of  the  Lord  was  with  the-m,  and  a  great  multitude  believed 
and  tnr-  ed  to  the  Lord." 

Thfi  finger  of  Gf)d  and  the  Spirit  of  God  arc  synony- 
tnous.  "  Bv  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens" — 
**  I  consider  the  heavens  the  work  of  thy  fingers''* — "  But  if 
1  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God^  then  the  Kingdom 
of  Gfid  is  come  unto  you" — "  But  if  I  with  the  finger  of 
God  cast  out  devils,  no  doubt  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  come 
upon  vou." 

Can  it  be  viewed  as  proper  or  respectful  to  speak  of  one 
self-existent  P<  rson  as  the  breath,  the  handy  or  the  finger^ 
of  another  co-equal  Person  ? 

As  the  arm^  the  hand,  or  xhv finger  of  a  person,  is  sub- 
ordinate to  his  will,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  is  uniformly 
represented  as  subordinate  to  the  will  of  God.  And  as 
any  thing  which  is  done  bv  the  hand  of  2l  man,  is  done  by 
the  ma7i,  so  any  thing  which  is  done  bv  the  Spirit  of  God, 
is  done  by  God,  Accordingly,  in  the  SViptures,  the  same 
things  are  at  one  time  attributed  to  God,  and  at  another  to 
the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Holy  Ghost. 

3.  The  metaphors  made  use  of  in  Scripture  to  repre- 
sent the  Spirit,  the  act  of  giving  or  sending  the  Spirit,  and 
the  descent  oi  the  Spirit,  are  clearly  against  the  opinion  that 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  129 

tlie  Spirit  is  a  distinct  Person.  Water  is  the  metaphor 
most  frequently  used  to  represent  the  Spirit  ;  and  the  act 
of  sending  or  giving  the  Spirit  is  represented  by  pouring 
out,  shedding  forth,  sprinkling,  washing,  or  baptizing  ; 
and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  compared  to  the  descent  of 
rain  and  dew* 

Giving  the  Spirit  is  also  compared  to  giving  water  to 
drink,  and  to  anointing  with  oil.  And  in  reference  to  the 
impression  the  Spirit  makes  on  the  hearts  of  saints,  it  is 
compared  to  ink. 

Can  you.  Sir,  suppose,  that  these  metaphors  and  repre- 
sentations properly  apply  to  a  Person,  or  to  the  act  of  send- 
ing a  self-existent  Person  ?  Pouring  out  and  sprinkling 
are  perhaps  the  most  common  metaphors  to  represent  the 
act  of  sending  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  what  metaphors  could 
you  invent  more  improper  to  represent  the  act  of  sending 
a  Person  ?  It  is  God  who  says,  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit."  And  if  you  say  by  God  is  meant  only  one  of  three 
self-existent  Persons,  will  you  also  say  that  one  self-exist- 
ent Person  promises  that  he  will  pour  out  another  self- 
existent  Person  ? 

Permit  me,  Sir,  to  ask,  what  do  you  mean  when  you 
pray  to  God  to  pour  out  his  Spirit?  Do  you  mean  to  ask 
one  self-existent  Person  to  pour  ow^  another  ?  Do  you  not 
mean  to  ask  God  to  make  a  gracious  display  of  his  fulness 
for  the  production  of  some  important  effects  ? 

When  you  speak  of  a  great  out-pouring  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  do  you  mean  to  represent  that  one  self-existent  Per- 
son has  made  a  great  out-pouring  of  another  co-equal  Per- 
son ?  Do  you  not  mean  that  God  has  made  a  great  display 
of  his  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  upon  the  hearts  and 
minds  of  men  ?  It  is  presumed  you  wnll  admit  that  the 
latter  is  your  meaning.  And  it  is  a  comforting  thought 
that  my  views  of  the  Spirit  not  only  accord  with  the  natural 
import  of  Scripture  language,  but  with  what  appears  to 
be  the  real  views  of  God's  people  in  their  prayers  for  the 
Spirit. 

3.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  spoken  of  in  the  Scriptures  as 
something  which  may  be  given  by  tneasure,  or  without 
measure  ;  and  when  communicated  or  displayed  by  meas" 
ure,  we  may  speak  of  a  residue. 

After  John  the  Baptist  had  seen  the  emblem  of  the 
descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon^the  Son  of  God,  be  not 
R 


130  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


only  bare  record  that  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  but  also  that 
*'  He  V  hom  Gcd  hath  sent,  speaketh  the  words  of  God  ; 
for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him.^^  In 
this  verse,  the  Son's  having  the  Spirit  ^^ithout  measure,  is 
given  as  the  reason  why  the  woi'ds  which  he  speaketh  are 
the  words  of  God. 

As  the  Son  of  God  had  the  Spirit  not  by  measure,  so  he 
had  it  in  a  manner  that  he  could  commimicate  it  to  others  ; 
therefore  John  further  test'fied,  "  This  is  He,  or  the  same 
is  He,  v«7hich  hxptizeth  -with  the  Holy  GhostJ*^  But  while 
the  Son  had  the  Spirit  without  measure,  the  Apostles  and 
isaints  had  it  by  measure* 

The  prophet  Malachi,  in  leaving  testimony  against  the 
conduct  of  the  Jews  in  putting  away  their  wives,  brings 
into  view  the  wise  conduct  of  God  in  creation,  in  making 
but  one  ivoman  for  one  man — *^  And  did  not  he  make  one  ? 
yet  had  he  the  residue  of  the  Spirit,"*  The  idea  intended 
to  be  communicated  appears  to  be  this,  that  God  did  not 
neg'ect  to  make  more  than  one  woman  for  one  man  through 
any  defect  of  wisdom,  power,  or  goodness.  Had  it  been 
best,  he  was  all-siifficient  to  have  made  more,  and  would 
have  done  it.  Does  not,  then,  this  text  plainly  suggest, 
that  by  the  Spirit  is  intended  ih^  fulness  or  alUsvffciency  of 
God  ?  And  do  not  the  phrases,  the  Spirit  by  measure^ 
and  the  residue  of  the  Spirit^  naturally  oj^pose  the  opinion 
that  by  the  Spirit  is  intended  a  distinct  and  independent 
Person  ? 

As  infinite  wisdom  saw  fit  not  to  place  me  on  a  level 
with  you,  and  most  of  my  brethren  in  the  ministry,  in 
respect  to  the  advantages  of  a  learned  education,  you  may 
think  it  improper  for  me  to  suggest  any  argument  from 
the  Greek  language  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  not 
pretending  to  much  knowledge  of  that  language,  permit 
me  to  ask  a  few  questions.  Are  not  the  articles  and  pro- 
nouns in  the  Greek  language,  agreeing  with  the  terms  Holy 
Spirit,  uniformly  of  the  neuter  gender  ?  And  are  not  the 
articles  and  pronouns  agreeing  with  the  Father  and  Son, 
of  the  masculine  gender  ?  TAnd  what  is  the  ground  of  this 
distinction,  if  the  Spirit  be  a  proper  Person  ? 

In  reply  to  these  questions,  it  has  been  said,  that  the 
noun,  Spirit,  is  of  the  neuter  gender  ;  and  the  genius  of 
the  Greek  language  requires,  of  course,  that  the  articles 
and  pronouns  should  be  of  the  neuter  gender.    All  this  is 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit*  131 

easVy  believed  ;  not  seeing  that,  in  this  respect,  the  genius 
of  the  Greek  language  differs  from  our  own.  But  why. 
Sir,  is  the  noun  neuter  ?  And  how  did  you  know  that  it 
■was  neuter,  but  by  the  neuter  articles  and  pronouns  ?  Had 
masculine  articles  and  pronouns  been  uniformly  used 
throughout  the  New  Testament,  as  agreeing  with  the  noun. 
Spirit,  would  you  ever  have  known  or  thought  that  the 
noun  was  of  the  neuter  gender  I 

In  some  instances,  the  translators  gave  us  the  pronouns, 
agreeing  with  the  Spirit,  in  the  neuter  gender,  according 
to  the  Greek — ''  The  Spirit  zVi-e^  beareth  witness  with  our 
Spirt." — '*  The  Spirit  f^se^maketh  intercession  for  us." — ^ 
Instead  of  zV.s-6'^  they  might  have  said  himself^  as  well  as 
to  have  given  us  he^  his^  him^  for  i/,  its^  &c.  And  if  they 
had  as  uniformly  given  us  the  pronouns  in  the  neuter,  as 
they  are  so  in  the  Greek,  the  appearance  of  the  Spirit's 
being  a  distinct  Person  would  have  been  nearly  excluded 
from  the  Bible.  And  we  should  have  as  much  reason  to 
suppose  that  by  ''  our  Spirits"  are  intended  Persons  distinct 
from  ourselves,  as  that  by  ;:he  "  Spirit  of  God"  is  intendv^d 
a  Person  distinct  from  the  Father.  This  probably  would 
have  been  completeK  the  case,  unless  we  should  have  had 
some  source  of  information,  by  which  we  should  have'been 
ablf  to  correct  the  natural  import  of  inspired  language. 

This  subject  of  the  pronouns  is  not  introduced  as  having 
had  any  influence  in  forming  mv  opinion  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  was  formed  previous  to  any  information  on  this  particu'^ 
Jar.  Yet,  in  my  view,  this  circumstance  corroborates  that 
opinion,  and  is  worthy  of  the  mos-  serious  attention. 

No  person,  in  conversation  with  pie,  has  pretended  to 
deny  the  fact,  that  the  pronouns  in  Greek  for  the  Spirit 
are  of  the  neuter  gender  ;  and  no  one  has  given  me  any 
satisfactory  reason  why  they  should  be  translated  as  per- 
sonal pronouns  of  the  masculine  gender.  It  is,  however, 
possible,  that  you,  or  some  other  person,  may  yet  do  it  ; 
but  until  it  is  done,  you  will  allow  me  to  consider  the  ar- 
gument in  view,  as  of  great  weight  against  the  personality 
p^'  the  Holy  Spirit. 


1 32  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Splr  It* 

LETTER  IL     ^ 

Some  Passages  considered^  which  have  been  supposed  to  sup^ 
port  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit* 

REV.  SIR, 

IT  may  be  proper  now  to  pay  some  attention  to  those 
passagea  of  Scripture,  which  have  been  supposed  most  cer- 
tainly to  imply  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

1  Cor.  ii.  10.  "  The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea  the 
deep  things  of  God." 

This  passage  has  much  of  the  appearance  of  favoring  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit.  But  if  we  candidly  attend  to  the 
following  verse,  this  appearance  may  disappear — "  For  what 
man  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit  of  man 
that  is  in  him  ?  Even  so,  the  things  of  God  knoweth  na 
man,  but  the  Spirit  of  God."  It  is  obvious,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  here  represented  as  bearing  the  same  relation  to 
God,  as  the  spirit  of  a  man  does  to  the  man.  But  as  a  man 
and  his  spirit  are  but  one  person,  so  God  and  his  Spirit  are 
Tepresented  as  one  Person. 

Mr.  Jones  has  quoted  the  last  of  these  verses,  to  prove, 
in  opposition  to  Arians,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  essential- 
ly God,  as  truly  so  as  the  spirit  of  man  is  essentially  man.. 
This  text  does  indeed  afford  a  conclusive  argument  against 
the  Arian  hypothesis ;  but  it  also  affords  an  argument 
equally  conclusive  against  the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Jones,  It 
is  on  the  ground  of  the  comparison  or  parallel  QJihWAitd  in 
the  text,  that  Mr.  Jones  shows  this  text  to  be  opposed  to 
the  Arian  scheme  ;  and  on  the  same  ground  it  is  as  clearly 
opposed  to  his  own,  unless  he  would  undertake  to  say  that 
a  man  and  his  spirit  are  two  persons.  If  he  could  make 
this  appear  to  be  true,  then  he  might  well  argue  that  God, 
and  his  Spirit  are  also  two  Persons. 

Acts  v.  3.  '-^  But  Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  satan 
£lled  thine  heart  to  lie  unto  the  Holy  Ghost  ?" 

Peter  and  other  apostles  had  been  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  a  remarkable  manner ;  and  it  was  doubtless  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  that  Peter  was  enabled  to  discern  the  de- 
ceit and  falsehood  of  Ananias.  His  lying,  therefore,  was 
really  lying  tQ  the  Holy  GhQst*    Ananias  had  doubtless 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit*  1S3 

been  a  witness  of  the  wonderful  things  which  God  had 
done,  and  that  the  apostles  had  done,  by  the  Holy  Ghost^ 
or  in  consequence  of  being  "  endued  with  power  from  on 
high,"  and  for  him,  in  the  face  of  those  manifestations  of 
Divine  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power,  to  come  forward 
with  a  lie  or  deceitful  pretence  to  the  apostles,  was  truly  to 
*' tempt  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,"  or  to  tempt  the  Lord  to 
display  the  same  power  in  his  destruction,  that  had  been 
displayed  for  the  salvation  of  others. 

Hei).  iii.  7.  "  Wherefore,  as  the  Holy  Ghost  scnth^  To- 
day if  ye  wi'l  hear  his  voice." 

We  have  many  instances  in  Scripture,  in  which  it  is  rep- 
resented that  the  Hoy  Ghost  spake  ^  said^  &c.  The  words 
of  Peter  will  explain  the  matter — *'  Holy  men  of  Qod-spake 
as  they  were  moved  bv  the  Holy  Ghost."  [2  Peter  i.  21.] 
God  by  his  Spirit  or  fulness  taught  them  what  "  they  ought 
to  speak." 

2  Cor.  xiii.  14.  ''  The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christy 
and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  be  with  you  all.     Amen." 

Thi^  passage  has  often  been  urged  with  considerable  con- 
fidence as  a  proof  that  there  are  three  self-existent  Persons 
in  the  Godhead,  and  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  one  of  those 
Persons.  But  a  little  attention  to  the  natural  import  of  the 
passage  may  be  sufficient  to  show  that  neither  of  the^  ideas 
are  implied.     We  may  note — 

1.  God  is  here  named  as  a  Person  distinct  from  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  Jesus  Christ  is  named  as  a  Per* 
son  distinct  from  the  self-existent  God. 

2.  The  text  does  not  say,  "  communion  -with  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  as  though  the  Spirit  were  a  Person  ;  but  "  com* 
munion  o/'the  Holy  Ghost,"  as  though  the  Spirit  were 
something  to  be  received.  We  have  a  similar  phraseology, 
1  Cor.  X.  16.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  wh  ch  we  bless,  is  it 
not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  .^''  Neither  the 
cup  nor  the  blood  of  Christ  is  a  person  ;  but  a  benefit^  of 
which  we  may  be  the  thankful  partakers.  The  import  of 
the  benediction  may  be  this.  May  you  experience  the  grace 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  by  being  made 
thankful  partakers  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  to  sanctify,  to  teach, 
to  support,  and  to  comfort  you  forever. 

The  phrase  "  fellowship  of  the  Spirit,"  is  the  same  in  the 
original  as  communion  of  the  Spirit.    This  by  Poole's  Con- 


134  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

tinuators  is  explained  to  mean,  communion  among  saints 
in  the  ''grace  of  the  Spirit."     [Phil,  ii!  1.] 

In  our  Savior's  affectionate  discourse  with  his  disciples 
before  his  passion,  for  their  comfort  and  support,  he  prom- 
ised them  the  Holy  Spirit  under  the  title  of  the  Comforter. 
The  substance  of  what  he  said  in  that  discourse,  respecting 
the  character  of  the  Spirit  shall  here  be  brought  into  view. 

"  And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you 
another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  forever, 
even  the  Spirit  of  Truth."     [John  xiv.  16,  IT.] 

"  But  the  Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom 
the  Father  will  send  jn  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all 
thin^,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  things  what- 
soever I  have  said  unto  you."     [John  xiv.  26.] 

"  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send 
unto  you  from  the  Father,  even  the  spirit  of  truth 
which  pr6ceedeth  from  the  Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me.'* 
[John  SLvf^e:] 

"  If  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  wil!  not  come  unto 
you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him^unto  you  ;  and  when 
he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteous- 
ness, and  of  judgment."     [John  xvi.  7,  8.] 

"  When  he,  the  spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth,  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself  ;  but 
whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speal^ :  And  he  will 
^hovv  you  things  to  come.  He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall 
receive  of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  [John  xvi,  13.] 

Had  we  no  other  passages  of  Scripture,  by  which  to  der 
termine  the  character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we  should  most 
naturclly  be  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a 
distinct  Person.  Yet,  it  niay  be  asked,  should  we  conclude 
that  the  Spirit  is  a  Person  independent^  and  equal  with  the 
Father  t  For  throughout  the  whole  description,  is  not  the 
Spirit  represented  as  subordinate  to  the  will  of  the  Father? 

In  these  passages,  Sir,  we  may  contemplate  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  properly  personified  under  another  name,  for  the 
same  reason  that  we  personify  the  natural  sun  ^^  hen  we 
wish  to  give  a  striking  and  impressive  view  of  its  glory, 
utility,  and  importance.  And  yet  there  seems  to  have 
been  particular  care  taken  that  our  minds  should  not  be 
misled  by  the  personification.  If  you.  Sir,  will  be  at  the 
trouble  of  removing  from  these  verses  the  personal  pro^ 
nouns,  and  write  neuter  j^ronouns  in  their  room,  so  far  as 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  13S» 

the  original  will  justify  such  a  change,  you  may  find  the 
personification  far  less  strong  than  it  is  in  our  translation. 
After  you  have  made  this  change  in  the  pronouns,  you  will 
not  find  the  Spirit  more  strongly  personified,  or  spoken  of 
as  a  distinct  Person  from  the  Father,  than  the  spirit  or  soul 
of  man  is  often  personified,  or  spoken  of,  ?s  a  distinct  per- 
son from  the  man.  Thus  the  Psalmist  addresses  his  soul, 
*'  Why  art  thou  cast  down,  O  my  soul  ?  Why  art  thou 
disquieted  within  me  ?  Hope  thou  in  God,"  &c. — ^The 
rich  fool  is  represented  as  addressing  his  soul  as  it  would 
be  natural  to  address  another  person — "  I  will  say  to  my 
sou ,  Soul,  thou  hast  goods  laid  up  for  many  years,  take 
thine  ease,  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry." 

Moreover,  there  are  several  things  said  of  the  Com-' 
forter,  which  naturally  suggest  the  idea  that  it  is  not  a 
Person^  but  an  emanation  of  the  Divine  fulness^  which  is 
intended.  When  Christ  had  named  the  Comforter,  he 
immediately  explained — the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  which  natural- 
ly suggests  the  idea,  that  what  he  was  speaking  of  was  aa 
efficient  influence  or  emanation  from  that  God  who  is 
truth.  Besides,  he  said,  '•'  The  Holy  Ghost  which  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  Father  ;"  and  this  is  the  precise  idea  of 
emanation.  But  it  does  not  comport  with  the  idea,  that 
the  Spirit  is  an  independent  Person,  co-equal  with  the 
Father.  1  here  is,  however,  still  more  decisive  evidence 
to  be  produced. 

These  gracious  promises  of  Christ,  of  the  Comforter, 
were  renewed  to  the  Apostles  after  Christ  had  risen  from 
the  dead ;  and  in  renewing  the  promises,  the  personifca- 
iion  was  wholly  omitted. 

In  giving  an  account  of  what  Christ  said  to  his  Apostles 
between  the  resurrection  and  ascension,  Luke  in  his  Gos- 
pel states,  that  Christ  said  to  them,  "  And  behold,  I  send 
tke  PROMISE  of  my  Father  upon  you  ;  but  tarr}^  ye  at  Je- 
rusalem until  ye  be  endued  with  power  from  on  high.** 
[Luke  xxiv.  49.} 

In  the  introduction  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Luke 
brings  the  same  thing  again  into  view,  but  in  a  different 
form.  After  mentioning  that  Christ  "  showed  himself 
alive  after  his  passion,  by  many  infallible  proofs,  being 
seen  of  the  Apostles  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  things  per- 
taining to  the  Kingdom  of  God,"  he  adds,  "  And  being 
assembled  together  with  them,  commanded  them  that  the/ 


136  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit 

should  not  depart  fi*om  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promiae 
of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he^  ye  have  heard  of  me.  For 
John  truly  baptized  with  ivater^  but  ^e  shall  bd  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  manv  days  hence." 

The  Apostles  were  inquisitive,  and  asked,  saying,  "  Lord, 
wilt  thou  at  this  time  restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? 
And  he  said  unto  them.  It  is  not  for  you  to  know  the  times 
or  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  his  own  power* 
But  ye  shall  receive  power  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you?"* 

In  these  several  accounts  there  is  an  obvious  reference 
to  the  prior  promise  of  the  Comforter  ;  and  these  passages 
serve  to  explain  the  import  of  that  promise.  To  be  endued 
with  power  from  on  high^  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  J  and  to  have  the  Comforter  sent  unto  them  are  all  the 
same  thing.  The  substance  of  the  whole  was  this,  that 
they  shoul  be  endued  with  supernatural  powers^  supernatu* 
ral fortitude^  supernatural  support^  assistance.,  and  comfort  i 
and  thus  be  prepared  to  go  forth  in  the  name  of  Christ  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  and  to  confirm  their  doctrines  by  signs 
and  wonders  or  incontestible  viiracles. 

And  it  may  be  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  represented  as  someth  ng  7(;i^/z  which  the  Apostles 
should  be  baptized^  as  John  baptized  with  water.  "  John 
truly  baptized  with  water ^  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.'*^  The  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  baptism  which  the 
Apostles  were  to  receive,ansvvers  to  the  water  in  the  bap- 
tism administered  by  John.  And  unless  we  may  suppose 
that  the  water  in  John's  baptism  was  an  agents  we  may  not 
suppose  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  an  agent  in  the  baptism  re- 
ceived by  the  apostles.* 

The  promise  of  Christ  was  fulfilled  ;  for  "  when  the  day 
of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  the  Apostles  were  all  with 
one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all 
the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared 
unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  on  each 

*  As  the  metaphor  of  ivater  is  abundantly  used  to  represent 
the  Holy  Spirit,  hafitiziiig  wifn  the  Holt  GHOsr  harmon- 
izes with  that  metaphor  ;  the  same  as  fiouring  out,  shedding 
forth,  sfiri^ikling,  &c.  In  the  NewTestament,  six  times,  we  hax  e 
the  representation  of  bafitizing  wiTH  the  Holt  Ghosi'.  But 
"Where  shall  we  find  one  instance  in  wliich  the  Holy  Spirit  is  rep- 
resented as  an  Jgent  or  Administrator  in  baptizing  ? 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  137 

df  them.  And  they  were  all  filed  with  the  Holy  Ghost^ 
and  began  to  speak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave 
them  utter ance* 

Thus,  Sir,  was  Christ's  promise  of  the  Comforter  fulfil- 
led; the  Apostles  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost; 
they  were  endued  with  power  from  on  high  ;  and  as  the 
first  fruits  of  this  power  they  spake  languages  that  they  had 
nttver  studied  or  learned  ;  and  they  spake  as  the  Spirit 
gave  them  utterance. 

Let  us  now  attend  to  Peter's  account  of  the  fulfilment  of 
the  promise  of  the  Comforter,  which  he  gave  in  his  ser- 
mon on  that  memorable  occasion. 

*'  This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up,  whereof  we  all  are 
"Witnesses.  Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  ex- 
alted, and  having  received  of  the  VdiXhtr  the.  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghosty  he  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see 
and  hear." 

As  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  baptism  answered  to  the  water 
in  John's  baptism,  arid  as  Christ  himself  had  become  the 
administrator  of  this  baptism,  Peter  with  great  propriety 
said,  "  Ht  hath  shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and  heara"* 

Thus  evident  it  is,  that,  in  Peter's  view,  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  something  which  may  be  shed  forth  by  the  Son  of  God, 
to  whom  the  Spirit  had  been  given  not  by  measure  ;  by 
him,  in  whom  it  had  pleased  the  Father  that  o/l  fulness 
should  dwell.  The.  same  view  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given 
by  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  Titus — *'  According  to  his  inercy, 
he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior."  [Titus  iii.  5,  6.] 

If  by  the  Holy  Spirit  be  meant  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head, or  an  efficient  emanation  of  Divine  fulness,  the  word 
shed  may  very  properly  be  used  to  express  the  manner  of 
its  being  given  or  sent.  But  who  will  say  that  this  is  a 
proper  term  by  which  to  express  the  act  of  giving  or  send- 
ing a  Person  ?  And  if  we  may  beHeve  that  the  Apostles 
understood  the  promise  of  the  Comforter,  which  is  the 
Holy  Ghost,  may  we  not  believe  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
not  a  Person  distinct  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  f 

Thus,  Sir,  it  has  been  my  endeavor  to  explain  what 
Christ  intended  by  the   Comforter,  by  making  the  Scrip- 
tures their  own  interpreter.     You  will  not,  it  is  hoped,  see 
any  sophistry  in  my  reasonings  upon  this  particular*     An4 
S 


138  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

if  not,  it  is  believed  that  you  must,  at  least,  ver}^  strongly 
doubt  the  correctness  of  any  theory  which  supposes  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  be  a  Person.  For  in  li*^  other  instance  is 
the  Spirit  so  strongly  personified  as  under  the  name  of  the 
Comforter. 

There  are  two  other  texts  which  deserve  very  particular 
attention,  viz.  Matthew  xxviii.  19.  and  1  John  v.  7.  But 
my  views  in  relation  to  these  texts  will  lead  me  to  some 
discussions  which  would  be,  in  this  place,  rather  an  inter- 
ruption to  the  mind  in  regard  to  the  main  inquiry.  They 
shall,  therefore,  be  considered  separately  in  Part  IV. — 
But  this  may  now  be  premised,  that  those  two  texts  should 
unquestionably  be  understood  in  a  sense  which  is  consist- 
ent with  the  general  tenor  of  the  Gospel  in  respect  to  the 
Holy  Spirit, 


LETTER  III. 

Other  Considerations^  to  shotv^  that  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not 
intended  a  distinct  Person* 


REV.  SIR, 

HAVING  endeavored  faithfully  to  examine  most  of 
those  passages  of  Scripture  which  have  the  greatest  appear- 
ance of  favoring  your  views  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  believ- 
ing it  has  been  shown  that  they  are  perfectly  consistent 
with  my  own  without  any  forced  construction,  some  far- 
ther considerations,  which  have  had  great  weight  on  my 
mind  against  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct 
and  self-existent  Person,  will  now  be  added. 
1.  Much  is  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  mutuallove  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  disposition  of  each  to 
honor  the  other  ;  but  where  shall  we  find  the  least  inti- 
mation of  any  love  on  the  part  of  the  Father  or  the  Son 
towards  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  Ptrson  I  or  on  the  part 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  towards  either  the  Father  or  the 
Son  ?  Yet  if  the  Spirit  be  a  Person,  as  distinct  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  from  the  Father, 
should  we  not  have  reason  to  expect  the  same  evidence  of 
mutual  love  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  ?     And  since  the 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  139 

evidence  of  mutual  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  is 
so  abundant  in  the  Scriptures,  and  no  mention  is  made  of 
any  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Spirit,  nor  between 
thc'Son  and  the  Spirit,  have  v^^e  not  strong  ground  to  be- 
lieve that  ihe  Spirit  is  not  a  distinct  Person  ? 

2.  We  have  much  said  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  love  of 
the  Father  towards  mankind,and  also  ofthe  !ove  of  tlie  Son; 
but  what  is  said  of  the  love  ofthe  Spirit  towards  oui  ruined 
race  ? 

3.  We  are  require  d  to  love  the  Father,  and  to  love  the 
Son,  as  two  distinct  Persons  ;  but  where  do  you  find  any 
requirement  to  love  the  Spirit  as  a  Person  distinct  from  the 
■father  or  the  Son  ?     Not  in  the  Bible. 

\  4.  We  have  both  precept  and  example  for  worshipping 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  two  distinct  Persons  ;  but  have 
we  either  precept  or  example  in  the  Scriptures  for  paying 
Divine  homage  to  the  Spirit  as  a  Person  t 

5.  We  have  an  account,  in  the  visions  of  John,  of  the 
Throne  of  God  and  ofthe  Lamb  ;  but  does  John  make  any* 
mention  of  the  Tlirone  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Or  is  there 
any  intimation  in  the  Bible,  that  the  Spirit,  as  a  Person^ 
has  a  Throne  in  Heaven  ? 

Now,  Sir,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Spirit  is  a  Person  *' 
coequal  with  God  the  Father,  how  will  you  be  able  to  ac- 
count for  these  dhtinctions^  or  these  omissions^  in  the  ,sa- 
crt  d  Striptures  ?  If  we  could  find  the  same  evidence  of 
mutual  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  be- 
tween the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  and  the  same  evidence  that 
the  Spirit,  as  a  Person,  loves  mankind,  as  that  the  Father 
and  the  Son  do  ;*  or  if  we  could  find  such  evidence  in  favor 
of  loving  and  honoring  the  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Person,  as  for 
loving  and  honoring  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  it  might 
seem  presumptuous  to  call  in  question  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit.  But  since  the  Scriptures  are  silent  in  all  these  im- 
portant respects,  suffer  me  to  dissent  from  your  opinion  ; 


*  It  may  be  said,  that  «Hhe  love  of  the  Spirit'*  is  once  men- 
tioned by  St.  Paul,  Rom.  15,  30.  Bat  it  is  needless  to  give  an  ex- 
position of  my  own,  to  show  that  the  passage  does  i  ot  represent 
the  Spirit  as  a  Person  loving.  It  may  suffice  to  copy  the  exposi- 
tion of  Mr.  Poole's  Continuators,  who  were  Athanasian  writers— 
•*  And  for  the  lo\  e  of  the  Spirit"— q.  d.  "  If  you  love  the  Spirit  of 
God  ;  or  rather  if  the  grace  of  love  be  wrought  in  you  by  the 
^ipirit,  show  it  in  this  thing." 


140  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

and  to  talce  the  Scriptures  for  my  guide  in  preference   to 
any  human  theory.  I 

6.  Though  St.  John  had  no  vision  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
as  personally  seated  on  the  Throne,  he  had  a  vision  of  the 
enthroned  Lamb  of  God^  as  having  sevfn  horns  and  seven 
eyes,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God  These  seven 
Spirits  of  God  have  been  understood  by  some  Athanasian 
Expositors  to  be  the  same  as  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  ap- 
pears to  be  correct.  But  that  an  individual  Person  should 
be  called  the  seven  Spirits  of  God^  must  appea^r  very  unnatu- 
ral ;  but  if  by  the  Holy  Spirit  be  intended  the  Divine  ful- 
ness or  sufficiency,  this  may  well  enough  be  called  the  seven 
Spirits  of  God  in  reference  to  its  perfection  and  manifold 
operation.  In  a  text,  several  times  quoted,  we  read,  with 
respect  to  the  Son,  that  "  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 
measure  unto  him  ;"  and,  in  the  passage  now  before  us, 
w^  find  Christ  represented  as  having  seven  horns  and 
seven  eyes,  which  are  the  seven  Spirits  of  God.  Horr^s 
are  understood  to  be  an  emblem  of  power^  and  eyes  of 
-ipisdom.  Then  the  seven  horiis  and  seven  eyes  denote  the 
perfect  fulness  of  Christ,  and  his  all-sufficiency  to  open  the 
()Ook,  and  to  loose  the  seals,  or  to  direct  and  govern  the  af- 
fairs of  the  universe.  In  view  of  this  plenitude  of  wisdom 
and  power,  with  which  the  Son  was  endued,  and  his  tak- 
ing the  book  and  opening  the  seals,  all  that  stood  about  the 
Throne  "  sung  a  new  song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy  to 
take  the  book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof  ;ycr  thou  ivast 
^lain^  an  \  hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of 
every  kindred,  and  tongue,  and  people,  and  nation." — Let 
us,  my  dear  brother,  go  and  do  likewise. 

Such  a  Trinity  in  unity  as  appears  to  be  represented  in 
the  Scriptures,  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following  simile- 
Suppose  a  Fountain  of  living  waters,  a  necessary 
Medium  of  effusion,  or  display,  and  an  abundant  Stream 
proceeding  trom  the  Fountain  through  the  Medium,  and 
spreading  far  and  wide,  producing  the  most  beneficial  ef- 
fects- 
Let  this  Fountain  be  supposed  to  represent  the  "  One 
God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  thingsJ'''  In  this 
fountain  we  may  contemplate  infinite  intelligence,  almighty 
power,  and  unbounded  benevolence — 

Let  the   Medium   represent  the  "  one    Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  by  whom  are  all  things,"     Let  this  Mcdiuii)  bf 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  141 

considered  as  an  intelligent  Being  truly  derived  from  God 
before  the  worlds,  in  one  view  properly  distinct  from  the 
Father,  and  in  another  view  perfectly  united  by  the  indwell- 
ing of  Divine  fulness- 
Let  the  Stream,  proceeding  from  the  Fountain  through 
the  Medium,  represent  the  Holy  SpaRit,  which  proceed^ 
ethfrom  the  Father^  through  the  Son,  and  operates  through 
the  universe. 

Does  not  this  illustration  preserve  the  most  perfect 
unity  in  God,  exalt  the  Son  as  Lord  of  all,  and  help  us  to 
an  easy  and  natural  construction  of  all  that  is  said  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  I 

In  this  view  of  the  Trinity,  may  we  not  properly  ascribe 
the  attributes  of  Deity  either  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  yet  avoid  even  the  appearance  of  having 
more  Gods  than  one,  or  more  than  one  self-existent  Person? 
The  Father  who  is  God  in  the  Fountain,  is  God  in  the 
Medium,  and  God  in  the  Stream  ;  or  to  drop  the  meta- 
phor, God  the  Father  is  God  in  the  Son  and  God  in  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

This  view  of  the  subject  will  readily  account  for  what 
has  been  noted  by  many  writers,  viz.  that  the  self-same 
works  are,  in  Scripture,  attributed  to  God,  to  the  Son  of 
God,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  God  creates,  governs,  and 
judges  by  his  Son  ;  and  the  Son  creates,  governs,  and 
judges  by  the  fulness  of  God  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Perhaps,  Sir,  the  above  simile  may  be  justified  by  St. 
John's  vision,  [Rev.  xxii.  i.]  "  And  he  shewed  me  a  pure 
River  of  Water  of  life,  clear  as  crystvi\,  proceeding  out  of 
the  Throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb," 

Here  you  will  observe,  that  distinct  mention  is  made  of 
the  Throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  ;  but  no  mention  of 
the  Throne  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have,  however,  an 
account  of  a  River  of  water  of  life  which  proceedeth  out 
of  the  Throne^  first  of  God,  then  of  the  Lamb — -And  what 
is  this  River,  but  a  stream  emanating  from  the  Fountain  of 
living  waters,  or  those  abundant  effusions  of  the  Divine  ful- 
ness which  proceed  from  God  through  Christ,  and  give 
life  and  felicity  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  New  Jerusalem  ? 
And  what  are  these  effusions,  different  from  that  Holy 
Spirit  which  '■^proceedeth  from  the  Father  ?"  The  River's 
proceeding  from  God,  and  from  the  Lamb,  perfectly  accords 
^ith  our  Savior's  account  of  the  Comforter. 


142  On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 

Here  it  may  not  be  apiiss  to  suggest  some  serious  ques- 
tions for  your  consideration,  with  a  reaucst  that  you  would 
weigh  them  in  an  even  balance. 

1.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  a  distinct  Person,  co-equal  with 
the  Father,  is  he  ijot  in  the  Scriptures  exhibited  in  a  man- 
ner which  appears  degrading,  and  truly  unaccountable  ;  as 
bearing  the  same  relation  to  God  as  an  attribute  ;  or  as  the 
hand  or  finger  of  God ;  as  being  constantly  subject  to  the 
control  or  the  will  of  another  Person  ;  never  exhibited  as  a 
distinct  oh^itcX  oi  worship  ov  oi  love;  never  addressed  in 
prayer  as  a  Person,  either  by  the  saints,  or  by  Jegus  Christ, 
though  the  Father  was  often  addressed  ? 

2.  If  you,  and  those  with  you  n  sentiment,  do  really 
view  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Person  equal  with  the 
Father,  are  you  not  justly  chargeable  with  want  of  respect, 
yea  with  disrespect^  towards  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  How  sel- 
dom do  we  hear  the  Spirit  mentioned  in  prayer,  otherwise 
than  as  something  which  is  subordinate  to  the  will  of  God, 
which  may  be  given,  sent,  or  poured  out,  for  our  benefit  ? 
At  the  c^ose  of  your  prayers,  you  often  mention  the  Spirit, 
as  though  you  thought  it  to  be  a  Person  ;  but  this  is  fre- 
quently the  only  instance  in  which,  through  the  whole 
course  of  a  prayer,  there  is  the  least  intimation  that  the 
Spirit  is  viewed  as  a  Person.  But  if,  in  your  view,  the 
Scr?]3tures  do  really  authorize  the  belief  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  a  distinct  Person,  and  of  equal  dignity  with  the 
Father,  how  will  you  be  able  to  answer  for  your  inconsis- 
tency in  treating  the  Father  with  so  much  more  respect 
than  you  do  the  Holy  Ghost  I  Has  not  the  Holy  Spirit 
reason  to  accuse  you  of  p'^rtiality  f  But  in  vindication  of 
your  conduct,  you  may  say,  and  that  with  great  propriety, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  so  much  as  named  as  a  Person  in 
any  prayer  recorded  in  the  Bible  ;  and  that  we  are  not  re- 
quired to  address  prayers  to  the  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Person. 
But,  Sir,  if  you  have  such  ample  ground  on  which  you  may 
Justify  your  apparent  neglect  of  the  Spirit,  have  you  not 
reason  to  examine  the  grounds  of  your  faith  ?  Does  not 
the  very  ground  on  which  you  would  justify  your  conduit, 
afford  reason   to  doubt  the   correctness  of  your  theory  ? 

3.  Do  not  your  habitual^  practical^  and  devotional  views  of 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  harmonize  much 
better  with  my  present  theory,  than  they  do  with  your 


On  the  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  14b 

own  ?  This  may  seem  to  you  an  extraordinary  question  ; 
but  it  is  proposed,  Sir,  with  considerable  confidence,  that, 
on  due  reflection,  if  you  answer  it  at  all,  it  must  be  in  the 
affirmative.  My  confidence  in  this  matter  results  partly 
from  experience,  and  partly  from  observation.  When  you 
approach  the  Throi  e  of  grace,  and  paur  out  your  hi  art  be- 
fore God  without  any  studied  respect  to  theory^  do  you  rtot 
address  God  as  one  Person  only  f  Do  you  not  use  the 
tt  rms  God,  and  Father,  as  perfectly  synonymous  ?  When 
you  thank  God  for  the  manifestation  oi  his  love,  in  sending 
his  dear  Son  to  die  for  our  offences,  do  you  not  naturally 
consider  the  Son  as  a  Being  properly  distinct  from  the  Fa- 
ther, naturally  subordinate  to  the  Father,  but  exalted 
with  the  Father's  right  hand?  When  you  pray  to  God 
that  he  would  pour  out  His  Holy  Spirit^  is  not  this 
your  real  prayer,  that  God  would  make  a  disp'ay  of  his 
power,  wisdom,  and  Irve,  for  the  production  of  some 
desirable  effect  ?  Do  you  not  mean  to  ask  for  some  effi- 
cient, productive  emanation  of  his  fulness  ?  If,  in  your 
habitual  and  devotional  views,  the  Spirit  were  a  distinct 
Person,  co-tqual  with  the  Father,  would  it  nvt  be  more 
mtural  for  you,  in  praying  for  the  Spirit,  to  address  your 
petitions  directly  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  than  to  pray  the  Fa- 
ther to  send  or  pour  out  his  Sptrit  P  Does  it  not  then  ap- 
pear tha^  your  devotional  and  habitual  views  are  conforma- 
ble to  the  theory  I  have  adopted,  and  in  opposition  to  your 
own  ?  How  then  will  you  be  able  to  vindicate  your  con- 
duct before  God,  from  a  charge  of  inconsistency,  in  sup- 
porting a  theory  which  is  repugnant  to  your  own  habitual 
and  devotional  views  or,  in  indulgng  habitual  and  devo- 
tional views  which  are  repugnant  to  the  theory  which  you 
profess  to  believe  ?  And  permit  me  to  ask,  which  does 
God  consider  the  real  sentiments  of  your  hearty  those  which 
you  express  in  advocating  your  theory,  or  those  which  you 
habitually  and  naturally  express  in  your  daily  prayers  to 
him  ? 

It  is.  Sir,  most  sensibly  fe't,  that  the  theories,  prepos- 
sessiot  s,  and  learning,  of  the  Christian  world,  are  at  present 
not  on  my  side.  But  no  small  consolation  is  derived,  by 
considering  the  general  ftenor  and  natural  import  of  Bible 
language  very  clearly  in  favor  of  each  part  of  the  theory 
set  forth  in  the  foregoing  Letters.  It  is  also  consoling  to 
consider  the  language  of  Christian  devotion  in  such  agree- 


144  On  the  Character  of  the  lloly  Spirit* 

ment  with  my  views,  that  whatever  may  be  objected  against 
them,  may,  with  equal  propriety,  be  objected  against  the 
most  devout  feelings  and  language  o^  my  Brethren.  And 
so  long  as  these  things  shall  appear  so  much  on  my 
side,  nothing  can  deprive  me  of  the  pleasing  expecta- 
tion that  the  theory,  now  exposed  to  public  view,  will 
be  found  substantially  correct,  approved  of  God,  and 
that  which  the  whole  family  of  Christ  will  ultimately  re- 
ceive, and  rejoice  in  forever. 


^^k 


PART  IV. 


A]!ir  EXAMINATION  OF  DIFFICULT  PASSAGES 
OF  SCRIPTURE. 


LETTER  I. 

Rules  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied. 

REV.  SIR, 

IN  the  precedirig  Letters,  my  views  of  many  passaged 
6f  Scripture,  which  have  been  supposed  to  favor  the  Atha- 
nasian  theory,  have  been  occasionally,  given.  But  there 
are  others  to  which  no  distinct  attention  has  been  paid.  It 
is  my  wish  to  have  error  dete(^ted,  if  there  be  any  in  my 
views.  Suffer  me,  therefore,  to  lay  before  you  my  adopt- 
ed Rules  of  interpretation,  and  give  you  a  specimen  of 
their  application. 

Rule  L  "  The  Scriptures  were  inspired,  to  instruct 
Common  readers,  by  using  words  according  to  their  com- 
mon acceptation,  and  not  to  confound  them  by  an  abuse  of 
language." 

The  language  in  which  this  Rule  is  expressed,  is  bor- 
rowed from  Dr.  Spring'^  sermon  on  the  self-existence  of 
Christ,  and  is  applied  to  the  many  thousands  of  texts  in 
which  personal  pronouns  of  the  singular  number  are  used 
as  substitutes  for  the  nouns  God,  Lord  God,  &c.  and 
the  inference  is,  that  God  is  one  Person  only. 

The  same  Rule  is  applied  to  the  numerous  texts  in  which 
Christ  is  represented  as  the  Son  of  God,  God's  own  and 
ONLY  Son  ;  and  the  inference  is,  that  Christ  is  not  the  self- 
existent  God,  but  the  Son  of  the  self-existent  God. 

Rule  IL  The  terms  used  in  Revelation  must  be- un- 
derstood in  a  sense  corresponding  with  some  analo|fy  known 
to  men. 


146     An  Exatnlnation  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture. 
(J 

According  to  this  Rule,  also,  it  is  inferred,  that  the  Son 
of  God  cannot  be  a  self-existent  Person.  It  is  likewise  con- 
cluded, that  there  are  no  passages  of  S(?ripture  which  were 
designed  to  teach  us  that  three  Persons  are  but  one  intelli- 
gent Being;  nor  that  there  may  be  two  intelligent  Beings  in 
one  Person.     As  extraordinary  as   it  may  seem,  both  of 
these  contradictory  hypotheses  pertain  to  your  theory.  God 
you  suppose  to  be  three  distinct  Persons  ;  and  yet  but  one 
intelligent  Being.     You  also  suppose  that  Christ  is  both 
God  and  a  Man  united  in  one  Person.     This,  it  is  thought, 
amounts  precisely  to  the  hypothesis  of  two  intelligent  Be- 
ings  in  one    Person.     Is  it  not,  Sir,  extraordinary,  that 
great  and  good  men  should  adopt  two  hypotheses  so  mani- 
festly contradictory,  while  neither  of  them  can  be  support- 
ed by  Scriptuie,  nor  illustrated  by  any  anology  in  nature  ? 
But  did  not  Christ  say,  /and  my  Father   are  one  ? 
Yes,  Sir  ;  but  he  never  said,  I  and  my  Father  are  but  one 
intelligent  Being*      Nor  have  we  any  analogy  which  can 
justify  such  an   interpretation  of  the   words.     There  are 
many  senses  in  which  a  Father  and  a  Son  may  be  one,  be- 
sides that  of  one  Being.     And  in  no  other  case,  in  which 
the  words  are  used  by  a  Son,  should  we  have  the  least  sus- 
picion that  this  is  the  intended   import.     God  and  Christ 
may  be  of  one  nature  as  a  Father  and  Son  ;  they  may  be 
one  in  affection,  in  interest,  and  in  operation  ;  they  may  also 
be  one  in  respect  to  fulness  and  authority,  as  has  been  al- 
ready noted  and  explained. 

When  Christ  made  this  declaration,  the  Jews  accused 
him  of  blasphemy,  and  of  "making  himself  God."  But 
Christ  in  his  answer,  distinctly  let  them  know  that  his 
words  imported  no  more  than  that  be  was  truly  the  Son  of 
God,  and  as  such  united  with  the  Father — "  Say  ye  of 
Him  whom  the  Father  hath  sanctified  and  sent  into  the 
world.  Thou  blasphemest,  because  I  said,  I  am  the  Son 
of  Gpd  V 

Rule  III.  So  far  as  the  Scriptures  may  interpret  them- 
selves, by  comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture,  such  inter- 
pretation is  to  be  preferred  to  any  human  h}'pothesis. 

This  Rule  has  been  found  of  extensive  application.  The 
Divine  names  and  titles  given  to  the  Son  of  God  ;  the  Di- 
vine works  and  honors  ascribed  to  him,  and  his  Divine 
fulness,  are  all  distinctly  accounted  for  in  the  Scriptures, 
on  the  ground  of  the  Father's  love  and  pleasure.     There- 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,     147 

fore  these  titles,  these  works,  these  honors,  or  this  fulness, 
may  not  be  considered  as  evidence  of  the  personal  self-ex- 
istence of  the  Son  of  God. 

Rile  IV.  In  many  instances,  it  is  necessary  to  take 
into  view  the  customs  of  the  people  to  whom  the  Scriptures 
were  originally  communicated,  and  to  consider  in  what 
light  they  would  most  naturally  understand  particular  pass- 
ages. 

The  prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah  were  probably 
originally  written  for  the  comfort  and  benefit  of  the  good 
people  among  the  Israelites  or  Jews  ;  at  least,  this  may  be 
supposec^to  be  one  principal  object  of  the  predictions.  In 
the  prophecies,  the  promised  Messiah  was  called  by  vari- 
ous names,  and  some  of  them  were  Divine  names,or  names 
of  Divine  import.  He  was  not  only  called  David,  and 
David  the.  King,  but  it  was  predicted  that  his  name  should 
be  called  Emmanuel,  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  the 
Mighty  God,  the  Everlasting  Father, and  the  Prince 
OF  Peace. 

If  we  would  know  how  a  Jew  would  be  likely  to  under- 
stand these  names  or  titles,  we  should  consider  a  custom 
which  was  common  among  the  Jews,  viz.  that  of  giving 
significant  names  to  persons,  places,  altars,  &c.  At  the 
close  of  our  great  Bibles  we  have  a  table  of  the  names 
used  in  the  Old  Testament,  with  their  several  significations. 
If  you  will  examine  this  table,  you  will  find  that  other  Per- 
sons had  Divine  names,  besides  the  Messiah. — See  a  few 
of  these  names,  with  their  signification — Eliashib^  the  God 
of  conversion — Elijah^  God  the  Lord,  or  the  strong  Lord — 
Eliphalet^  the  God  of  deliverance — Elisha,  the  salvation 
of  God — Letnuely  God  with  them,  or  him.  They  also 
gave  Divine  names,  or  names  of  Divine  import,  to  places 
and  altars — jfehovah-jireh^  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide — 
Jehovah-Nisri^  the  Lord  my  Banner — El-elohe- Israel^  God, 
the  God  of  Israel. 

Now,  Sir,  imagine  yourself  to  have  been  a  Jew,  living 
in  the  days  of  the  Prophets,  and  perfectly  acquainted  with 
the  custom  of  giving  significant  names  ;  then  consider  what 
ideas  you  would  naturally  have  taken  from  the  various 
names  given  to  the  promised  Messiah.  If  you  had  heard 
him  called  Damd^  or  David  the  King^  would  you  have  sup- 
posed that  the  Man  who  killed  Goliah  was  to  appear  again 
as  the  promised  Savior?     If  you  had  heard  the  Prophet 


V 


148     An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture, 

sav,  respecting  the  promised  Son,  They  shall  call  his  name 
Emmanuel,,  would  you  have  supposed  that  God  himself  was 
to  come  as  the  promised  Messiah  t  Would  you  not  rather 
have  supposed  the  Son  to  be  one  in  whom  God  would  make 
some  gracious  manifestations  of  himself  to  men  ?  If  you 
had  heard  h'm  called  the  Mighty  God,,  and  Everlasting  Fa- 
ther^  would  it  not  have  been  natural  for  you  to  suppose  that 
the  Son  was  to  be  one  in  whom  the  Mighty  God  and  Ever- 
lasting Father  would  make  surprizing  manifestations  of  his 
power  and  his  kindness  ?  If  you  had  heard  him  called, 
*'  The  Lord  our  Righteousness,^'^'*  what  would  have  been 
m  re  natural  than  for  you  to  have  supposed,  that  the  Mes- 
siah was  to  be  one  in  whom  Jehovah  would  display  his 
righteousness^  or  one  through  whose  righteousness  men 
should  be  benefited  by  Jehovah  ? 

Accustomed  as  the  Jevi^s  were  to  believe  in  one  God 
only,  and  to  speak  of  that  God  as  only  one  Person  ;  ac- 
customed as  they  were  to  the  use  of  significant  names  of 
high  import  ;  would  it  not  have  been  unspeakably  more 
natural  for  them  to  understand  the  names  of  the  Messiah 
as  significant,  importing  some  such  ideas  as  I  have  men- 
tioned, than  to  suppose  that  the  SoiJ  to  be  born  was  the 
VERY  God  who  had  proinised  to  send  him  into  the  world  ? 

The  Prophet  did  not  say  the  Son  shall  be  Emmanuel, 
but  "  they  shall  call  his  name  Emmanual."  He  did  not 
say,  the  Son  shall  be  the  Mighty  God  and  Everlasting 
Father,  but  "  his  name  shall  be  called^'*  &c.  And  this 
phraseology  Avas  probably  used  with  direct  reference  to  the 
custom  of  the  Jews  in  giving  significant  names.  And  the 
Sun's  having  the  Divine  names  thus  given  him  by  the  spirit 
of  prophecy,  is  no  proof  that  he  is  personally  the  self-exist- 
ent God,  any  more  than  his  being  called  David,  or  David 
the  King,  is  a  proof  that  he  was  personally  David  the  son 
of  Jesse. 

It  may  be  useful,  in  this  connexion,  to  consider  what  ex- 
pectations were  in  fact  excited  among  the  Jews,  by  the  Di- 
vine names  given  to  the  promised  Messiah.  And  is  there. 
Sir,  any  evidence,  that  any  Jew,  whether  learned  or  un- 
learned, good  or  bad,  ever  understood  the  Divine  names 
given  to  the  Messiah,  as  importing  that  He  should  be  the 
6elf-cxistent  God  ?  If  no  such  idea  was  excited  in  the 
minds  of  pious  Jews,  by  the  use  of  those  names,  we  may 
reasonably  suppose  that  no  such  idea  was  intended  in  the 
predictions. 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*     149 

LETTER  II, 

A  fifth  Rule  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied^ 

REV.  SIR, 

PERMIT  me  now  to  state  and  apply  another  Rule  of 
interpretation. 

Rule  V.  Particular  phrases,  terms,  and  epithets,  are 
to  be  understood  in  a  sense  which  is  consistent  with  the 
general  tenor  of  the  Qospel,  and  the  character  of  the  ob- 
jects to  which  th^y  are  applied. 

There  are  two  things  respecting  Jesus  Christ,,  which  are, 
in  my  view,  supported  by  the  general  tenor  of  the  Gospel, 
viz. 

1.  That  he  is  trul)'  the  Son  of  God. 

2.  That  he  obeyed,  suffered,  and  died,  to  open  the 
way  for  our  salvation. 

These  two  points  are  not  only  supported  by  the  general 
tenor  of  the  Gospel,  but  they  appear  to  be  essential  to  the 
Gospel  plan  of  salvation.  If  we  deny  these,  do  we  not  in 
effect  deny  the  Gospel  t  If  we  deny  these,  do  we  not 
make  God  a  liar  P 

If  these  are  points  unquestionably  revealed,  and  sup- 
ported by  the  general  tenor  of  the  Gospel,  then  all  the 
particular  phrases,  terms,  and  epithets,  used  in  respect  to 
the  Son  of  God,  are  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  which' is 
consistent  with  these  leading  truths  of  the  Gospel. 

There  are  several  texts  of  Scripture  which  have  been 
understood  as  supporting  the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God  is 
absolutely  self-existent,  independent,  and  immutable.  But 
as  this  doctrine  is,  in  my  view,  inconsistent  with  what  have 
been  stated  as  truths  supported  by  the  general  tenor  of  the 
Gospel,  let  us  examine  those  texts,  and  see  whether  they 
do  necessarily  import  what  you  and  others  have  imagined. 

John  X.  18.  "I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again.  This  commandment  have  I  re- 
ceived of  my  Father." 

If,  in  any  instance,  the  Son  of  God  said  any  thing  which 
imported  that  he  had  independent  po-wer^  this  is  the  instance 
' — But  Christ  did  not  say,  "  I  have  independent  ^oiver^^^ 


150     An  Examinaticn  cf  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture. 

Besides,  it  is  believed,  that  in  this  case  the  word  power  is 
the  same  as  authority.  And  this  authority  or  this  com- 
mandment Christ  says  he  received  of  his  Father.  We  may- 
add,  the  resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead  is  abundant- 
ly and  explicitly  attributed  to  God  in  distinction  from  the 
Son — "  God  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

Micah  V.  2.  "  Whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of 
old^  from  ever  lasting, '''^ 

Whatever  existed  before  the  world,  may  be  said  to  be 
of  old^  from  everlasting.  In  the  viii.  chapter  of  Proverbs, 
Wisdom,  or  Christ  under  the  name  of  Wisdom,  is  repre- 
sented as  using  language  similar  to  that  in  the  text  before 
us — "  The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way, 
before  his  works  of  old :  I  was  set  up  from  everlastings  from 
the  beginnings  or  ever  the  earth  was."  But  Wisdom  adds, 
*'  When  there  were  no  depths,  Iwas  brought  forth'''* — Be- 
fore the  hills,  was  I  brought  forth-^^''  Then  I  was  by  him 
as  one  brought  up  xvith  hiiUs  and  I  was  daily  his  delight" — 
Brought  up  with  him  as  a  Son  with  a  Father  ;  and  as  a  Son^ 
was  daily  his  delight.  The  Son  was  from  everlasting,  as 
he  was  brought  forth  before  there  were  either  depths  or 
hills. 

Rev.  i.  ir.     "I  am  the  First  and  the  Last.^'* 

In  the  xliv.  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  Lord  of  Hosts  adopts 
this  title,  and  says,  "  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last^  and  be- 
sides me  there  is  no  God." 

In  view  of  these^texts,  Mr.  Jones  forms  this  argument 
— "  There  is  no  God  besides  him  who  is  the  First  and  the 
Last ;  but  Jesus  Christ  is  the  First  and  the  Last :  there- 
fore, besides  Jesus  Christ  there  is  no  God."  If  this  be 
fair  reasoning,  we  may  draw  another  conclusion,  viz. 
*'  The  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  is 
not  God, — Is  it  not  amazing,  that  Mr.  Jones  should  reason 
in  such  a  manner  ?  In  several  instances,  his  conclusions 
as  fully  exclude  the  Father  from  being  God,  as  it  is  pos- 
sible that  language  should  do  it. 

In  Isaiah,  God  did  not  say,  Besides  us  there  is  no  God  ; 
but,  "  Besides  me  there  is  no  God."  His  words  therefore 
as  fully  exclude  every  other  Person  as  every  other  Being. 

When  Christ  said,  "  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last,"  he 
immediately  added,  "  I  am  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead,'*'^ 
He  is  therefore  to  be  considered  as  the  First  and  the  Last 
in  a  sense  which  is  consistent  with  his  having  been  deai>. 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture.      151 

There  are  several  senses  in  which  Christ  may  style  himself 
*'  the  First  and  the  Last" — He  may  be  so  called  as  the  cou" 
stituted  Head  2ind  Chief  of  creation  ;  and  as  in  his  glory,  as 
well  as  the  glory  of  the  Father,  all  things  will  terminate — 
He  may  be  so  called  as  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  faith  ; 
or,  as  a  Son,  he  may  bear  the  Divine  titles  of  his  Father. 

Heb.  xiii.  8.  "  Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and 
to-dav,  and  forever." 

This  text,  on  which  so  much  reliance  has  been  placed, 
has  no  verb  in  it ;  and,  therefore,  considered  by  itself,  it 
contains  no  affirmation.  For  the  beginning  of  the  sentence, 
and  the  sense  of  the  text,  we  have  to  look  back  to  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  "  Remember  them  who  have  the  rule  over 
you,  who  have  spoken  unto. you  the  word  of  God  ;  whose 
faith  follow,  considering  the  End  of  their  conversation, 
Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yesterday,  and  to-day,  and  for- 
ever." 

It  is  evident,  that  it  is  as  the  End  of  Christian  conver- 
sation that  Christ  is  here  brought  into  view.  And  by  fe^ 
sus  Christy  we  may  understand  not  merely  his  Person,  but 
his  interest  and  glory.  This  End  of  our  conversation  is 
of  imputable  and  perpetual  importance — the  same  yester- 
day, to-day,  and  forever. 

Heb.  i.  12.  "  But  thou  art  the  same,  and  thy  years 
shall  not  fail." 

This  text  was  quoted  from  the  cii.  Psalm,  and  there 
was  used  in  an  address  to  God.  This  circumstance  is  wor- 
thy of  note,  and  in  my  view,  is  the  only  difficulty  present- 
ed by  the  text.  Why  were  words,  which  were  first  ad- 
dressed to  God,  quoted  and  applied  to  the  Son  ?  Perhaps 
you  will  not  find  me  able  to  answer  the  question  ;  but  if 
so,  it  will  not  hence  follow  that  it  is  unanswerable. 

In  the  5th  verse,  the  Apostle  quoted  a  passage  from  the 
Old  Testament,  and  applied  it  to  Christ,  which  was  origin- 
ally used  in  respect  to  Solomon — "  I  will  be  to  him  a  Fa- 
ther, and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  These  words  are  to 
be  found  three  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  and'each  time 
they  are  contained  in  a  gracious  promise  of  God  to  David 
respecting  his  son  Solomon.  Why  then  did  the  Apostle 
quote  these  words  and  apply  them  to  Christ,  as  though 
they  had  been  originally  used  in  respect  to  him  ?  The  an- 
swer must  probably  be  this,  that  Solomon  was  a  type  of 
Christ.     May  we  not  then  suppose,  that  the  words,  which 


1 52     An  Exaniination  of  difficult  passages  ofScrtptu,  c . 

were  first  addressed  to  God,  were  quoted  bv  the  Apostle 
and  applied  to  Christ  as  the  Son  and  "  image  of  the  invisi- 
ble God  ?"  1 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  import  of  the  text  :  "  But  thou 
art  tjie  same,  and  thy  years  shall  not  fail."  Here  we  have 
exhibited  a  contrast  between  the  material  world  oxidi  its  con- 
stituted Creator,  And  what  is  the  contrast  ?  One  waxes 
old  and  is  liable  to  perish,  and  the  other  will  remain  the 
same  without  end.  This,  it  is  conceived,  is  the  most 
which  can  be  supposed  to  be  necessarily  implied  in  the  text. 
And  what  is  here  affirmed  of  Christ,  agrees  with  what  he 
said  of  himself,  "  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last.  I  am  he 
that  liveth  and  was  dead  ;  and,  behold,  I  live  forevermore." 

You  suppose  the  text  imports  absolute  immutability. 
But,  Sir,  was  it  no  change  in  the  Son  of  God  to  pass  from 
the  form  of  God  to  the  form  of  a  servant  ?  Was  it  no 
change  to  die,  and  to  be  raised  again  from  the  dead  ?  Is 
he  now,  at  the  Father's  right  hand,  in  all  respects  the  same 
that  he  was  when  he  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  "  My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?" 

Permit  me,  Sir,  to  ask,  whether  the  Greek  word  autos^ 
"whkh  in  the  text  is  translated  same^  is  any  where  in  the 
New  Testament  used  as  importing  absolute  immutabilitv, 
unless  it  be  in  the  two  texts  which  I  have  been  last  consid- 
ering ?  If  the  clause  had  been  translated  "  But  thou  art 
He^''  meaning  he  with  peculiar  emphasis  and  distinction, 
would  it  not  have  been  a  literal  and  correct  translation  ? 

But  let  the  translation  be  as  it  is,  only  let  the  word  same  be 
understood  in  a  sense  which  will  not  contradict  the  Gospel 
of  Divine  Love. — It  is  my  choice  to  believe  that  God  has 
spared  not  his  own  Son  ;  and  not  to  believe  that  he  made  a 
mere  show  of  so  loving  the  world,  when  he  did  not  in  re- 
ality. It  affords  me  far  greater  satisfaction  to  believe  that 
the  Son  of  God  was  capable  of  personally  doing  and  suffer- 
ing according  to  the  representations  of  Scripture,  than  I 
could  find  in  believing  that  there  is  a  want  of  strict  truth 
and  simplicity  in  the  Gospel  representations  of  Divine 
Love. 


An  Examination  ofdtff^cult  Passages  ofScriptute*      153 

LETTER  III. 

Other  Texts  considered* 
REV.  SIR, 

SOME  texts,  on  which  Mr.  William  Jones  has  placed 
great  reliance,  may  now  be  introduced. 

John  iii.  2,  9.  "  He  that  hath  the  Bride,  is  the  Bride- 
groom." 

Isaiah  liv.  5.  "  Thy  Maker  is  thy  husband,  the  Lord 
of  Hosts  is  his  name." 

Mr.  Jones  says,  '*  The  church,  which  is  the  Bride,  can 
no  more  have  two  Husbands,  than  Christ  csm  have  two 
churches." 

Whatever  difficulty  may  be  involved  in  the  idea  of  two 
Husbands  to  the  church,  the  difficulty  cannot  be  diminished 
by  supposing  a  greater  number.     Yet  Mr.  Jones'  theory 
plainly  supposes  three  distinct  Persons  or  agents,   tach  of 
>vhom  is  the  Husband  of  the  church. 

The  truth  is,  that  there  is  in  no  other  sense  two  HuS" 
hands  to  the  church,  than  there  are  two  Creators,  Saviors^ 
or  Lords,  As  God  creates  and  saves  by  his  Son,  so  by  his 
Son  he  shows  the  kindness  of  a  Husband  to  the  Church. 
The  Son  is  the  constituted  Creator,  Savior,  and  Lord;  so 
he  is  the  constituted  Head  and  Bridegroom  of  the  church. 
Accordingly,  "  The  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  like  unto  a  cer- 
tain King,  who  m?de  a  marriage  for  his  Son." 

Rom.  ix.  5.  "  Whose  are  the  Fathers,  and  of  whom, 
as  concerning  the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  for  ever.     Amen." 

That  Christ  is,  in  this  text,  called  God,  will  not  be  de- 
nied. But  if  he  be,  we  may  reasonably  suppose  that  it  is 
in  the  same  sense  that  the  Father  calls  him  God,  in  his  ad- 
dress, Heb.  i.  8,  9 — that  is,  on  the  ground  of  a  constituted 
character.  See  Part  II.  Letter  IV. — But  it  is  my  prevail- 
ing opinion,  that  the  latter  clause  of  this  text  ought  to  be 
understood  as  an  expression  of  gratitude  and  praise  to  God, 
the  Father,  for  giving  his  Son  to  come  in  the  fl'^sh,  and 
exalting  him  as  Lord  over  all ;  and  that  the  verb  be  is  -|^« 
derstood  in  the  original,  and  should  be  supplied  in  the 
translation,  so  as  to  have  the  clause  read,  "  God  be  bless- 

U 


154     An  Examination  of  diffcidt  Passages  of  Scrlpturt^ 

ed  forever.  Amen."  The  verb  be^  you  know,  is  often 
understoodin  the  Greek,  »nd  often  supplied  in  the  trans- 
lation ;  and  it  is  so  several  times  betvve|;;n  the  words  blessed 
and  God,  By  comparing  the  Greek  word  in  this  text,  with 
other  texts  in  which  it  is  translated  blessed^  it  appears  to  me 
clearlv  to  import  gratitude  and  praise  ;  *  and  such  excla- 
mations of  gratitude  and  praise  to  God,  are  commort  in  the 
writings  of  the  apostle  Paul.  You  will  be  pleased  to  ex- 
amine and  judge  for  yourself.  As  it  respects  the  point  in 
question,  it  is  to  me  a  matter  of  perfect  indifFerenCy  in 
which  of  the  two  senses  the  text  is  understood. 

2  Cor.  V.  19.  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the 
tvorld  to  himself." 

Mr.  Jones  savs,  ''  Were  there  no  other  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture to  be  found,  this  alone  is  suffic"ent  to  overthrow  the 
whole  doctrine  of  Aria^l^srn^''-^')^ov^^v^  r  true  this  observa- 
tion may  be  as  it  respects  Arianism^  the  text  will  be  found 
perfectly  harmonious  with  my  views.  God  is  evidently 
spoken  of  as  one  Person  only  ;  and  Christ  as  another  Person 
distinct  from  God.  "  God  was  in  Christy  reconciling  the 
world  to  HiMSFLF."  Himself  is  a  proper  pronoun  for  oner 
Person^  and  God  is  the  antecedent.  This  one  Person  call- 
ed God,  was  in  another  Person  called  Christ.  If  Christ 
Were  himself  God,  and,  as  Mr.  Jones  affirms,  the  only 
true  God^  let  me  be  informed  zvhat  God  was  in  Christ, 

In  remarking  on  this  very  text,  Mr.  Jones  says,  "  thcr 
word  God,  though  of  the  singular  number,  is  of  plural  com- 
prehension ;"  and  he  explains  himself  to  mean  that  it  com- 
prizes three  Persons.  The  import  of  the  text  would  then 
be,  that  three  Persons  called  God,  vcre  in  Christ,  recon- 
ciling the  world  to  himself  It  may  be  asked,  ought  not 
the  pronoun  to  be  themselves  ?  Besides,  if  by  God  be 
meant  three  Persons^  Christ  is  2i  fourth  Person^  and  not  one 
of  the  three  \nz\\x&td  in  the  name  God.  The  same  would 
be  true  of  the  phrase,  the  Son  of  God. 

1  John  V.  20.  ''  And  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in 
bis  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal 
life." 

»  „0, 

*  Was  not  our  word  eulogize,  from  the  Greek  word,  i"  this 
text,  which  is  translated  blessed  ?  And  if  it  were  cornmon  ta 
speak  of  eulogizing  God,  might  not  the  sense  of  the  text  be  thus- 
expressed,  Whose  are  the  Fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concerning 
the  flesh,  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  he  eulogized  fov; 
tver.    Amen  ? 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,     155 

With  great  confidence,  this  text  has  been  urged  as  an 
infallible  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  is  personally  the  true  and 
self-existent  God.  But  let  us,  Sir,  examine  impartially,  and 
take  the  connexion  into  view — '*  And  we  know  that  we  are 
of  God,  and  the  whole  world  lieth  in  wickedness.  And 
we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us 
an  understanding  that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true  ; 
and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus 
Christ.    This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life." 

Sometimes  the  sense  of  a  passage  is  rendered  obscure  by 
the  repartition  of /jro?7^W72.9,*  and  it  is  ever  safe  to  substitute 
the  nouns  for  the  pronouns.  Let  us  do  so  in  regard  to  this 
20th  verse.  The  apostle  had  mentioned  God,  in  the  pre- 
ced  ng  verse.  He  goes  on  to  say,  **■  And  we  know  that 
•the  Son  of  God  is  come,and  hath  given  us  an  understand- 
ing, that  we  may  know  God  that  is  true ;  and  we  are  in" 
God  that  is  true^  even  in  God's  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This 
is  the  TRUE  God,  and  eternal  life." 

Now,  it  may  be  asked,  which  of  the  two  is  called  the 
*'  TRur  God"  in  the  last  sentence,  he  that  is  represented  as 
the  TRUE  God  repeatedly  in  the  preceding  part  of  the 
verse,  or  the  Soi^  of  the  true  God  who  had  come  to  give 
us  an  understandmg  that  we  might  know  God  that/*  true^ 
Unless  we  are  to  believe  that  John  meint  to  teach  us  that 
there  are  more  true  Gods  than  one,  we  must  suppose  the 
TRUE  God  in  the  last  sentence  is  the  sojne  Person  as  the 
TRUE  God  in  the  preceding  sentence,  of  whom  Christ 
was  th.;  Son. 

Christ,  in  his  praver  to  the  Father,  whom  he  styled  the^ 
ONLY  TRUE  GoD,  said,  "  I  have  manifested  thy  name  to 
the  men  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world."  This  perfect- 
ly agrees  with  John's  account,  that  "the  Son  of  God  is  come, 
and  hath  given  us  an  understandings  that  we  may  know  Him. 
that  is  truey  As  Christ  was  in  the  flesh  ;  as  the  only  true 
'  God  was  in  Christ;  and  as  the  business  of  the  Son  was  to 
give  us  an  understanding  of  him  that  is  true^  or  to  manifest 
the  TRUE  God  ;  so  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh. 
[iTim.  iii.  16.] 

Isa.  viii.  13,  14.  "  Sanctify  the  Lord  of  Hosts  him- 
self; and  let  Him  be  your  fear,  and  let  Him  be  your  dread. 
And  He  shall  be  for  a  Sanctuary  ;  but  for  a  stone  of  stum-^ 
bling  and  for  a  ruck  of  offence  to  both  the  houses  of  IsraeL'* 


156     An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture* 

1  Peter  ii.  7.  8.  "  The  Stone  which  the  builders  dis» 
allowed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  <)f  the  corner,  and  a 
stone  of  stumblings  and  a  rock  of  off^ence*'^ 

From  these  two  texts,  compared,  Mr.  Jones  draws  this 
Conclusion,  "  Christ  is  the  Lord  of  Hosts  himself." 

That  by  the  Lord  of  Hosts  is  here  meant  the  self-existent 
God,  is  adm'tted.  It  is  a'so  admitted,  that,  in  the  text 
quoted  from  Peter,  Christ  is  called  the  stone  of  stumbling 
and  rock  of  offence.  Isaiah  says  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  that 
*'  he  shall  be  for  a  stone  of  stumbling ^^^  &c.  But  how  shall 
he  be  thus  ?  By  some  act  of  his  providence^  or  some  man^ 
ifestation  of  hiynself.  The  event  proved  that  the  act  ox 
manifestation  predicted  was  that  of  sending  his  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh*  As  God  thus  manifested  himself  in 
the  Person  of  his  Son^  He  became  a  stone  of  stumblings  that 
is,  he  did  that  at  which  his  people  stumbled.  And  at  the 
same  time,  his  Son  was  a  stumbling  block  or  stone  of  stum- 
bling. Accordingly,  by  the  same  prophet  God  said,  "  Be- 
hold I  LAY  in  Zion  a  Stone,  a  tried  Stone,  a  precious 
CORNER  Stone."  [Isa.  xxviii.  16.]  This  text  is  also  quoted 
an  the  New  Testament,  and  applied  to  Christ.  T\ns  pre- 
cious corner  stone  was  a  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  of- 
fence :  This  Stone  was  laid  in  Zion  by  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  Himself  ;  and  by  this  act  of  his  providence,  he 
became  a  stone  of  stumbling  to  the  unbelieving  of  "  both 
the  houses  of  Israel." 

Psalm  Ixxviii.  56.  "  They  tempted  and  provoked  the 
Most  High  God." 

1  Cor.  X.  9.  "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ^  as  some  of 
them  also  tempted,'''* 

'*•  Therefore,"  says  Mr.  Jones,  "  Christ  is  the  Most 
High  God." 

Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  "  He  that  despiseth  me,  de- 
spiseth  HIM  that  sent  me."  On  the  same  ground  we  may 
say,  he  that  tempted  Christ,  or  the  Angel  ofGod'^s  Pre- 
sences tempted  God.  But  if  we  must  hence  infer,  that 
God  and  Christ  are  the  same  Person  or  Beings  what  will  be 
the  inference  from  these  words  of  Christ, "  He  that  despiseth 
YOU,  despiseth  me  ?"  Must  we  not  infer,  that  Christ  and 
his  Apostles  are  the  same  Person  or  Being  ? 

In  Rom.  X.  19...21.  We  read,  "  First,  Moses  saith,  I 
will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  by  them  that  are  no  people. 
But  Esaias  is  very  bold  and  saith,  I  was  faund  of  them  that 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,     iSf 

sought  me  not.  But  to  Israel  he  saith.  All  day  long  have 
I  stretched  forth  my  hands  to  a  disobedi<"nt  and  gainsaying 
people."  But  if  we  look  into  the  Old  Testament,  we  find 
that  all  these  things  were  said  by  Jehovah,  the  God  oi? 
Israel.  Moreover,  we  read,  *'  As  for  Saul,  he  made 
havock  of  the  church,  entering  into  every  house,  and  haK 
ing  men  and  women,  committed  them  to  prison."  But 
Christ  considered  this  as  persecuting  himself;  and  said  to 
him,  "  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  T'  Now,  Sir, 
if  it  were  safe  to  follow  Mr.  Jones  in  his  method  of  draw- 
ing conclusions,  it  might  be  inferred  that  3foses  and  Isaiak 
were  the  God  of  Israel,  yea,  '•'the  Lord  of  Hosts 
HIMSELF,''  and  that  the  men  and  women,  persecuted  by- 
Saul,  were  Christ  HiMsrxF. 

If  a  King  has  an  own  Son,  whom  he  delights  to  honor, 
and  who  is  united  with  him  in  government,  whatever  the 
King  does  by  his  S^>n^  may  be  properly  attributed  to  either 
the  Father,  or  the  Sou  :  And  the  disrespect  shown  to  the 
Son  may  be  considered  as  disrespect  to  both  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  Had  these  ideas  been  duly  considered  and  ap- 
plied by  Mr,  Jones,  a  great  part  of  his  inferences  and  con* 
c'usions  would  probably  have  never  appeared  in  print.  But 
by  disregarding  such  analogies,  he  compelled  the  Bible  to 
speak  his  mind. 


LETTER  V. 

The  Son  of  God  not  the  same  Person  as  the  God  of  Israel.    ^ 

REV.  SIR, 

MUCH  time  and  labor  have  been  expended,  and  much 
ingenuity  displayed,  in  attempts  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  very  Person  who  is  called  the  God  of  Abraham,  and 
the  God  of  Israel,  in  the  Old  Testament.  That  he  was 
the  Angel  oi  G(»d,  and  the  3Iediwn  of  Divine  manifestations y 
has  been  already  admitted  ;  but  that  the  Angel  of  God  and 
ihit  God  of  Israel  vi\c?ir\  the  same  Person,  is  not  admitted. 
For  the  phrase  the  Angel  of  God  2is  clearly  presents  to  the 
mind  two  distinct  Beings^  one  of  which  is  sent  by  the  other^ 
as  the  phrase  the  Messenger  of  Divid.  Besides,  the  God 
of  Israel  said  respecting  this  Angel,  "  B,eware  of  him,  pro- 


158    A?t  Examinatton  ofSfficult  Passages  of  Scripture* 

♦• 

voice  bim  not,  for  he  w^ll  not  pardon  vour  transgressions  ; 
for  MY  name  is  in  him."     In  these  worcts,  the  God  of  Is- 
rael is,  in  the  most  decided  manner,  distinguished  from 
'\»fttt/^ih^  Angel  of  his  Presence^  as  an-y  tuhei>  Being  or  Agent. 

1  hat  the  Son  of  God  is  not  the  same  Person  as  the  God 
of  Abraham,  or  the  God  of  Israel,  may  appear  from  the 
following  considerations  : 

1.  It  was  the  God  of  Israel  who  gave  the  promise  of  the 
Messiah.  He  never  promised  that  he  would  be  the  Mes- 
siah ;  but  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  Son  whom  the  God  of 
Israel  was  to  raiae  up, 

2.  The  title  given  to  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God,  will 
naturally  lead  us  to  the  same  conclusion.  It  was  the  God 
of  Israel  who  proclaimed  from  heaven  respecting  the  Mes- 
siah, "  This  is  mij  beloved  Son^  As  Christ  was  made 
JfBown  to  the  Jews  as  the  Son  of  God,  would  they  not 
jjaturaliy  be  led  to  conclude,  that  if  he  were  the  Son  of  any 
God^  he  was  th€  Son  of  the  God  of  Israel?  And  if  you. 
Sir,  suppose  that  he  is  the  very  Person  who  was  called  the 
God  of  Israel^  please  to  inform  me  o^rvhat  God  he  was  the 
Sof7,  Will  it  not  follow  inevitably  from  your  hypothesis, 
either  that  Christ  was  not  the  ^^^^  v  of  God^  or  that  the  God 
of  Israel  was  the  Son  ©f  some  othir  God  P 

3.  We  have  the  most  decided  testimony,  both  of  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  that  the  Person  who  is  called  the  God  of 
Abraham  and  the  God  of  Israel^  was  the  Father  of  Christ. 
In  John  viii.  54.  we  have  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself — 
"  Jesus  answered.  If  I  honor  myself,  my  honor  is  nothing  ; 
it  is  my  Fathf^R  that  honoreth  nie^  of  whom  ye  say  th^t 
He  is  YOUR  G<^D."  What  God,  Sir,  did  the  Jews  say  was 
their  God  ^  Was  it  not  the  God  of  Israel  P  If  so,  then 
the  God  of  Israel  was  the  Father  of  Christ.  And  is  not  this 
testimony  of  Christ  sufficient  to  overbalance  all  the  argu- 
ments on  your  side  of  the  question?  And  unless  you  can 
persuade  yourself,  that  Christ  might  be  both  the  Father  and 
the  Son  of  himself,  must  you  not  either  relinquish  your 
hypothesis,  or  call  in  question  his  veracity  P 

Moreover,  from  this  portion  of  Christ's  testimony,  we 
may  learn,  that  when  he  spake  of  God,  he  meant  his  Fa- 
ther ;  and  when  he  spake  of  his  Father,  he  meant  the 
God  of  Israel.  Therefore,  whenever  he  spake  ot  God, 
or  his  Father,  his  language  implied  that  he  himself  was 
Qot  the  Person  who  had  been  called  the  God  of  Israel. 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  cf  Scripture*     i5^ 

Let  us  now  listen  to  the  language  of  Peter,  Acts  iii.  13» 
"  The  God  of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob,  the 
God  of  our  fathers,  hath  glorified  his  Son  Jesus,^"*  This 
testimony  is  too  plain  to  need  any  comment. 

Paul,  in  his  address  to  the  dispersed  Israelites,  whom 
he  found  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  said,  "  The  God  of  this 
people  of  Isr:  el  chose  our  fathers,  and  exalted  the  people 
where  they  dwelt  as  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt."  He 
then  rehearsed  a  number  of  events  between  that  period  and 
the  days  of  David  ;  and  having  mentioned  David  as  a  man 
*'  after  God's  own  heart,"  he  added,  "Of  this  man's  seed 
hath  God,  according  to  his  promise^  raised  unto  Israel  a 
Savior,  Jesus."     [Acts  xiii.  23.] 

In  the  first  verse  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  we  read 
that  "  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners^ 
spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers,  bi/  the  prophets^  hatti 
in  these  last  days  spoken  to  us  by  his  Son."  Was  it  not 
the  God  of  Israel  who  spake  by  the  prophets  ?  If  so,  Christ 
was  the  Son  of  the  God  of  Israel. 

In  support  of  the  idea  now  before  us,  a  very  considera- 
ble part  of  the  New  Testament  might  be  quoted  ;  for  at 
the  very  foundation  of  the  Gospel,  this  idea  is  laid.  That 
Jesus  Christ  is  the5oN  of  the  God  of  Israel ;  and  this  idea 
runs  through  the  writings  of  the  Evangelists,  and  the  ser- 
mons and  Epistles  of  the  Apostles.  The  matter  is  so  clear- 
ly and  so  abundantly  expressed,  that  it  is  amazing  that  any 
one,  either  myself  or  others,  acquamted  \yith  the  Scrip- 
tures, should  ever  entertain  the  idea  that  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  very  Person  who  had  been  called  the  God  of  Israel, 

In  regard  to  the  texts  which  have  been  relied  on  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  the  very  Person  who  was  called  the 
God  of  Israel,  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  most  of  them 
would  be  easily  explained,  and  the  argument  set  aside,  by 
only  making  a  proper  distinction  between  the  Angel  of 
God  as  the  Medium  of  Divine  manifestation^  and  the  God 
who  was  manifested  through  that  INIedium  ;  or,  by  only 
observing  that  whatever  God  does,  by  Christ,  may  be 
properly  attributed  either  to  God  or  his  Son.  Many  of 
the  principal  texts  of  this  class  have  been  already  examin- 
ed ;  and  it  is  hoped  enough  has  been  said  to  convince  you^ 
that  the  hypothesis  that  Christ  is  the  Person  who  is  called 
the  God  of  Israel,  is  without  any  solid  foundation  in 
the  Bible.     Bu^  the  circumstance,  that  this  hypothesis  has 


160     An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture* 

been  so  long  and  so  generally  admitted  by  pious  Christians, 
may  be  considered  as  evidence  that  it  has  had  advocates 
who  were  esteemed  eminent  for  pietij  and  ability^  For  it 
is  difficult  to  conceive,  how  any  thing  short  of  distinguish'- 
ed  eminence  of  character^  in  its  advocates^  could  ever  have 
given  currency  and  popularity  to  an  opinion  so  manift  stly 
repugnant  to  the  ^^j&rd?*5  declarations  of  Christ  and  his 
Apostles,  and  to  the  general  tenor  of  the  Gospel. 

If  you,  Sir,  should  be  disposed  to  say,  that  you  never 
implicitly  denied  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  let  me  ask. 
Is  not  2(n  attempt  to  pry^e  th'dt  Christ  is  the  very  Person 
who  is  called  the  God  of  Israt-l,  an  implicit  denial  that  he 
is  the  Son  of  God  ?  Would  nut  a  serious  attempt  to  prove 
that  Isaac  was  the  very  person  who  was  called  Abraham, 
imply  a  denial  that  Isaac  was  the  Son  of  Abraham  I 


LETTER  VI. 

The  Import  of  1  John  V.  7. 


REV.  SIR, 


IT  is  now  proposed  to  consider  that  much  disputed 
text,  \  John  v.  7 — "  There  are  three  that  bear  record  iri 
heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
these  three  are  one." 

You  are  not  insensible  that  the  genuineness  of  this  text 
has  been  denied  by  some,  and  doubtt-d  by  many.  How- 
ever, nothing  is  perceived  in  it  which  gives  me  occasion,  or 
inclination,  to  avail  myself  of  these  circumstances  to  get 
rid  of  the  text.  Nothing  in  it  appears  at  all  inconsistent 
with  other  parts  of  the  Scripture. 

But  you  will  be  pleased.  Sir,  to  note,  that  the  Apostle 
does  not  say.  There  are  three  Persons  who  bear  record— 
And  we  ought  to  be  cautious  in  affirming  more  than  he 
affirms.  In  the  very  next  verse  it  is  added,  "  And  there 
are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit^  the  W.ter, 
and  the  Blood;  and  these  three  agree  in  one." 

Bearing  witness  and  bearing  record  are  the  same  thing. 
The  last  three  bear  witness  as  well  as  the  first  three ;  but 
no  one  supposes  that  Persons  are  intended  by  the  Water 
and  the  Blood, 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*      161 

The  Holy  Ghost  in  the  first  three^  and  the  Spirit  in  the 
second  three^  may  be  the  same,  only  referring  to  different 
testimonies  or  evidences  of  the  truth*  In  the  frst  three^ 
the  Spirit  is  connected  with  two  Persons  ;  in  the  last  three^ 
it  is  connected  with  two  objects  which  are  not  Persons,  Its 
connexion,  therefore,  leaves  the  matter  oi personality  whol- 
ly undetermined  ;  for  the  evidence  resulting  from  con- 
nexion is  perfectly  equal yor  and  against  the  supposition. 

If  you  shall  ask.  How  can  the  Holy  Ghost  be  said  to 
bear  witness^  unless  it  be  a  Person  ?  It  may  be  asked. 
How  can  the  Water  and  the  Blood  bear  witness,  unless  they 
are  Persons  f  And  both  questions  may  be  answered  in 
this  manner — They  bear  witness  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
works  of  Christ  bore  witness  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
a.?d  sent  of  the  Father.  "  The  same  works  that  I  do,  bear 
•witness  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent  me."  We  know 
that  actions  and  facts  speak  as  loud  as  words,  and  are  as 
proper  evidei>ce  for  the  support  of  truth. 

It  will  further  be  observed,  that,  respecting  the  Father, 
the  Word,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  said  these  three  are 
one.  But  it  is  not  said  that  these  three  are  one  Being  or 
one  God.  Nor  is  any  such  idea  naturally  implied  or  sug- 
gested. How  then  are  they  one  P  They  are  one,  as  any 
three  witnesses,  whether  persons  or  things,  are  one^  which 
unite  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  same  truth. 

The  observations  already  made  may  be  sufficient  to  show 
that  this  text  contains  nothing  in  favor  of  the  supposition  of 
three  self-existent  Persons  in  one  God^  and  nothing  against 
the  theory  which  I  have  adopted.  It  may,  however,  be 
useful  to  make  some  further  remarks. 

If  the  two  verses,  which  have  been  under  consideration, 
were  written  by  John,  the  truth  of  which  is  very  willingly 
admitted,  the  object  of  the  Apostle  in  them  was,  to  show 
what  abundant  evidence  had  been  given  for  the  confirma- 
tion of  these  truths,  viz.  That  Jesus  Christ  is  truly  the 
Son  of  God  :  that  "  God  has  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and 
that  this  life  is  in  his  Son."  This  will  clearly  appear  to  any 
judicious  person,  who  will  be  at  the  pains  of  examining 
the  connexion,  beginning  with  the  4th  verse  and  ending 
with  the  11th.  After  having  mentioned  the  thrt^e  that  bear 
record  in  heaven,  and  the  three  that  bear  witress  in  earth, 
the  Apostle  says  in  the  11th  verse," And  this  is  ther^cord^^ 
that  is,  the  thing  testified  by  these  witnesses,  "  This  is  the 
W 


162     An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture* 

record,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life ;  and  this 
life  is  in  his  Son."  1 

The  things  which  have  been  done  in  confirmation  of 
these  truths,  are  the  things  intended  by  bearing  witness  or 
record. 

Among  all  the  events  which  have  excited  the  attention 
or  astonished  the  minds  of  angels  and  men,  there  are  none 
more  extraordinary  in  their  nature,  or  more  interesting  in 
their  consequences,  than  the  incrirnation^  x\\t  public  minis- 
try^ the  death  and  resurrection^  of  the  Son  of  God.  It 
appears  highly  important,  that  events  of  so  extraordinary 
a  nature  should  be  the  subjects  of  prior  promises  and  pre- 
dictions, that  they  should  be  accompanied  by  signs  and 
wonders,  and  that  some  public  memorials  should  be  insti- 
tuted to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  those  events  to  the  end 
of  time. 

Accordingly  we  find  that  those  events  were  not  only  the 
subject  of  promises,  but  of  numerous  and  circumstantial 
predictions,  by  which  a  general  expectation  of  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  was  excited.  His  birth  was  announced  not 
only  by  the  appearance  of  a  supernatural  Star,  but  by  An- 
gelic Envoys  from  the  Court  of  Heaven.  According  to 
prophecy,  John  the  Baptist  came  "  to  prepare  the  way  of 
the  Lord,"  by  preaching  and  administering  the  baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.  He  understood  his 
business  as  the  Herald  of  the  Lord.  A  token  was  given 
him  beforehand,  by  which  he  was  to  know  the  Son  of  God 
when  he  should  come  to  be  baptized,  or  inaugurated  2iS 
the  Teacher  sent  from  Heaven.  At  length  the  Savior 
came  to  John  to  be  baptized.  And  after  his  baptism,  in  an- 
swer to  his  prayer,  the  Heaven  was  opened,  and  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily  shape  like  a  dove  upon 
him,  and  a  voice  came  from  Heaven  which  said,  Thou  ^rt 
MY  Br  LOVED  SoN^  in  thee  lam  well  pleased.''^  [Luke  iii.  22.] 

Our  Savior,  being  thus  inaugurated,  endued,  and  an- 
nounced to  the  world  as  the  Son  of  God,  proceeded  to  the 
work  of  his  public  ministry.  In  the  course  of  his  ministry, 
he  abundantly  testified  with  his  own  lips,  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God,  that  he  was  sent  into  the  world  by  the  Father 
to  save  sinners.  In  support  of  such  declarations,  he  wrought 
innumerable  miracles  by  the  HoLT  Spirit  which  he  had 
received  o£  tht  Father. 


An  Examination  ofdtficult  Passages  &f  Scripture.     163 

As  a  farther  confirmation  of  these  truths,  while  he  was 
on  a  mountain  with  Peter,  James,  and  John,  he  was  trans- 
figured before  them,  and  his  face  did  shine  as  the  sun,  and 
his  raiment  was  white  as  the  light.  And  behold,  there  ap- 
peared unto  them  Moses  and  Elias  talking  with  him.  And 
a  bright  cloud  overshadowed  them  ;  and  beho'd,  a  voice 
out  of  the  cloud,  whsch  said,  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;  hear  ye  him." 

Moreover,  at  the  time  of  his  crucifixion,  farther  evidence 
was  given^  by  supernatural  tokens,  that  he  was  the  Son  of 
God — "  Now  from  the  sixth  hour  there  was  darkness  over 
all  the  land  unto  the  ninth  hour."  While  the  inhuman 
rabble  were  insulting  him,  and  calling  on  him  for  some 
miracle  to  prove  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  cried 
with  a  loud  voice,  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me  ?"  And  as  he  expired,  behold  the  vail  of  the 
temple  was  rent  in  twain  from  the  top  to  the  bottom,  and 
the  earth  did  quake,  and  the  rocks  rent,  and  the  graves  of 
the  dead  were  opened.  Such  events  produced  conviction 
in  the  minds  of  the  Centurion  and  others  with  him — they 
feared  greatly,  saying,  "  Truly  this  was  the  Son  of  God." 

As  Christ  had  not  only  foretold  his  death,  but  also  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  this  event  was  necessary  to 
confirm  the  truth  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  Accord- 
inglv  he  was  "  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power, 
according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead."  And  after  he,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  had 
given  commandment  to  the  Apostles,  while  they  beheld, 
he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight. 

Thus,  Sir,  it  is  conceived,  the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  have  testified  to  confirm  the  truth,  that  Je- 
sus is  the  Son  of  God,  that  God  has  given  to  us  eternal  life, 
and  that  this  life  is  in  his  Son.  And  these  three  are  one,  as 
the  several  modes  of  testifying  all  unite  to  prove  the  self- 
same truths. 

In  the  passage  under  consideration,  there  is  a  difficulty 
resulting  from  the  distinction  of  heaven  and  earth,  which 
it  may  now  be  proper  to  note.  The  testimony  in  both 
cases  seems  to  have  been  given  to  men  on  earth  :  and  yet 
the  first  triad  is  represented  as  bearing  record  in  heaven 
and  the  other  2«  ^f7r^A.  This  difficulty  you  will  perceive 
is  not  peculiar  to  my  views  of  the  Trinity  j  it  is  equally  a 


164     An  Examination  of  drffcuk  Passages  of  Scripture^ 

difficulty  on  vour  theory.  You  will  not  understand  me  as 
expressing  mv  views  with  great  confidence  in  this  case,  bi?t 
only  as  stating  what  appears  to  me  most  jjrobable. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  Mosaic  state  of  the 
church  appears  to  be  called  heaven^  ch.  xii.  verse  26.  The 
Apostle  was  aiming  to  prove  to  the  Hebrews  the  abolition 
of  the  Mosaic  rituals,  by  the  coming  and  death  of  the  Son 
of  God.  For  this  purpose  he  quoted  a  prophecy,  *'' Yet 
once  more  I  shake  not  the  earth  only^  but  also  heaven^"* 
Upon  which  he  observes,  *'  And  this  word  yet  once  more 
signifieib  the  removing  of  those  things  that  are  shaken^"*  &c. 

The  word  heaven  is  here  evidently  used  in  reference  to 
that  external  state  or  order  of  the  church  which  was  estab- 
lished by  the  ministry  of  Moses.  That  state  was  to  be 
shaken  and  removed  by  the  coming  and  death  of  the  Son  of 
God.  And  if  we  may  suppose  that  John  used  the  word 
heaven  in  the  same  sense,  will  it  not  solve  the  difficulty, 
and  afford  us  a  proper  dividing  line,  as  to  time,  between 
the  testifying  of  the  frst  three  and  the  second  three  ?  What 
has  already  been  brought  into  view  of  the  testifying  of  the 
Father^  the  Word.,  and  the  Holy  Spirit^  was  during  the 
Mosaic  state  of  the  church,  and  ended  with  the  abolition 
of  the  Mosaic  rites.  These  were  the  things  which  weire 
concomitant  vvith  Christ's  residence  on  earth,  and  necessa- 
ry, at  that  period,  to  prove  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God, 
and  had  been  sent  into  the  world  by  God  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  sinners.  But  when  Christ  had  finished  the  work 
which  he  was  sent  to  do  in  this  world,  he  ascended  to  glo- 
ry, and  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  The  door  was 
then  open  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  throughout  all  the 
earthy  and  from  that  period  the  second  triad  of  witnesses: 
may  be  supposed  to  bear  witness. 

The  Father  no  more  announces  with  an  audible  voice 
from  heaven,  *'  This  is  my  beloved  Son."  The  Son  no 
more  goes  about  personally  announcing  his  own  character. 
But  the  Spirit  of  God  still  continues  to  testify.,  and  was  one 
of  the  second  triad.,  as  well  as  of  the^r,9^.  As  this  had  been 
given  without  measure  to  Christ,  as  a  testimony  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God  ;  so  it  was  given  to  the  Apostles  by 
measure^  to  prove  the  same  thing  ;  and  to  prove,  also,  that 
they  were  as  really  sent  by  Clirist  as  He  had  been  sent  by 
the  Father,  And  thus  having  the  Spirit  of  God  to  perform 
miracles,  the  Apostles  were  enabled  to  produce  conviction 


Jin  Examination  ofdificult  Passages  of  Scripture,     16S' 

of  the  truth  and  reality  of  the  things  which  thev  testified 
coJicerning  Josus.  And  thus  they  were  prepared  to  extend 
the  Gospel,  and  the  church  of  God,  among  the  heathen 
Rations.  And  not  only  was  the  Holy  Spirit  granted  for 
the  purpose  of  miracles,  but  to  convince  the  world  of  sin, 
of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment  ;  and  to  extend  the  con- 
quests of  the  Redeemer  over  the  hearts  of  men,  and  to  en- 
large his  Kingdom  in  the  world.  Miracles  have,  indeed, 
ceased  to  be  common  in  the  church  ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit 
has,  in  other  respects,  been  granted  to  the  church  from 
age  to  age  ;  and  l)y  it,  the  church  is  continued  and  kept 
alive  ;  and  will  be  so  to  the  end  of  the  world.  And  what 
is  done  by  the  Sfjint  from  age  to  age,  is  of  the  nauire  of  a 
testimony  that  '*-  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,"  "  that  God  has 
given  to  us  eternal  iife,  and  that  this  Ufe  is  in  his  Son." 

But  what  ai-e  intended  by  the  other  two  witnesses,  the 
TVater  and  the  Blood  ? 

In  the  verse  immediately  preceding  those  vmder  consid- 
eration, John  said  of  the  Son  of  God,  "  This  is  he  that 
came  by  Water  and  Blood  /"  not  by  Water  only^  but  by 
Water  and  Blood.  By  the  Blood,  in  this  instance,  is 
undoubtedly  intended  his  .siifftrings  and  death.  And  by 
Water,  may  be  intended  the  baptism  of  John,  by  which 
the  way  of  the  Lord  was  prepared,  and  by  which  Christ 
was  solemnly  inaugurated  as  the  Great  High  Priest,  and 
the  Envoy  of  Heaven  to  a  sinful  world. 

On  this  important  occas'on  we  have  noted,  that  two  ex- 
traordinary events  took  place  to  confirm  the  truth  that  he 
was  the  Son  of  God — The  voice  from  heaven^  and  the  de- 
scent of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

By  the  Water  and  the  Blood  which  bear  xvitness^  we 
may  then  naturally  understand  the  two  sacraments  of  the 
New  Testament,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  the 
one  as  a  memorial  that  the  Son  of  God  came  by  Water^ 
ad  the  other  as  a  memorial  that  he  came  by  Blood  ;  or,  in 
other  words,  the  one  as  a  memorial  of  the  solemn  and  pub- 
lic inauguration^  enduement^  and  annunciation  of  the  Mf^s^ 
siiH  ;  and  the  other  as  a  memorial  of  H/5  death^  with  the 
concomitant  events,  by  which  it  was  evinced  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God  and  the  Savior  of  the  world. 

Monnments  or  institutions^  as  tnemorials  of  extraordinary 
events,  are  properly  of  the  nature  oi  witnesses^  and  are  so 
considered  in  the  Scripture  ;  and  they  may  be  as  propcriy 


166    An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture, 

adduced  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  events  of  which  they 
are  jnemorials^  as  the  official  records  of  a  town  clerk  or  of 
a  secretary  of  state.  1 

It  is  a  common  custom  imong  nations  to  erect  monu- 
wents^  or  to  establish  institutions^  to  perpetuate  the  memo- 
r)^  of  interesting  events  ;  and  this  custom  probably  origin- 
ated from  Divine  Example. 

The  Sabbath  was  first  instituted  as  a  memori^  of  God's 
resting  on  the  seventh  day  from  the  wor4c  of  creation.  In 
the  days  of  Moses,  it  was  re-instituted  not  onlv  as  a  memo- 
rial of  God's  rest,  but  of  the  deliverance  of  the  people  of 
Israel  from  their  servitude  in  Egypt. 

From  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  present  time,  the 
first  d?y  of  the  week  has  been  kept  as  a  memorial oi  the  reS' 
nrrection  of  the  Son  of  God, 

The  Passover  was  instituted  as  a  memorial  of  one  of  the 
most  extraordinary  events  by  which  God  delivered  Israel 
from  the  oppression  of  Pharaoh.  The  paschal  Lamb  was 
a  type  of  the  Lamb  of  God  which  was  to  come  and  be  slain 
for  the  sins  of  the  world.  The  Israelites,  therefore,  while 
duly  attending  on  the  Passover,  naturally  looked  backward 
to  their  redemption  from  Egyptian  slavery,  and  forward 
to  the  great  Propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  But 
when  the  Savior  had  actually  appeared,  and  had,  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself  made  atonement  for  our  sins,  the  Pass- 
over was  of  course  set  aside,  to  give  place  to  a  memorial  of 
the  antett/pe.  Accordingly,  the  Lord\  Supper  was  insti- 
tuted as  a  memorial  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  Mes- 
siah, or  of  the  Blood  that  was  shed  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  This  Sacrament  is  now  a  -wituifss  to  the  church,  and 
to  the  world,  that  God  has  given  to  us  eternal  life,  and 
that  this  life  is  in  his  Son,  who  died  for  our  offences,  and 
was  raised  again  for  our  justification. 

As  the  Passover  was  an  institution  which  connected  the 
redemption  from  Egypt  with  the  death  of  the  Messiah  ;  so 
the  Lord's  Supper  connects  that  period  when  Christ  made 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  with  that  event  when  he  shall 
"  come  a  second  time  without  sin  unto  salvation"—"  As  oft 
as  ye  do  this,  ye  do  show  forth  the  Lord^s  death  till  he  come, ^"^ 

God  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  in  which  he  prom- 
ised that  in  him  and  in  his  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
should  be  blessed.  This  seed  was  Christ.  The  event 
of  that  covenant  transaction  was  an  extraordinary  cvent^ 
and  one  which  required  a  memorial*     As  a  token  or  me?no- 


JLn  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture.     167 

rial  of  this  event,  God  instituted  circumcision.  This  instil 
tutioD  was  not  only  calculated  for  a  memorial  of  the  past 
event,  but  it  was  peculiarly  adapted  to  tne  purpose  of  keep- 
ing alive,  in  the  minds  of  Abraham's  posterity,  that  the 
Messiah  was  to  be  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  according  to  the 
flesh.  At  length  the  prot?*ised  Messiah  was  born  into  the 
world,  and  in  due  time  he  was  publicly  and  solemnly  in* 
augurated  ;  and  God  himself  attended  thv  ordination  ;  en- 
dued him  with  his  own  Spirit,  and  by  an  audible  voire  from 
his  excellttnt  glory  proclaimed,  *^  This  is  my  belovc-d  Son^ 
in  whom  I  am  well  pi  teased."  No  event,  prior  to  this,  had 
been  more  worthy  of  a  perpetual  memoria'.  Circumcision, 
as  it  had  respect  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  according  to 
the  fleshy  became  improper  to  be  continued  in  the  churr.h 
after  it  had  been,  in  this  solemn  manner,  announced  to  the 
world,  that  the  promised  seed  had  come,  and  had  en- 
tered on  his  arduous  w^rk  ;  at  least,  after  he  had  come  and 
fnished\{\^ ^ork  on  earth,  it  appears  altogether  suitable 
that  an  institution,  which  had  a  particular  reference  to  his 
coming  in  the  fleshy  should  be  set  aside,  and  give  place  to 
a  memorial  oi  his  having  come  by  IVater^  or  his  having  been 
PUBLICLY  INAUGURATED  and  ENDUED  as  the  Messiah, 
and  publicly  acknowledged  by  God  as  his  Son,  in  whom 
he  was  well  pleased.  Therefore,  before  the  ascension  of 
our  Lord,  he  instituted  the  ordinance  of  Baptism^  to  be 
regarded  as  a  public  memorial  in  the  church,  and  a  stand- 
ing witness  to  the  world,  that  God  hath  given  to  us  eter- 
nal life,  and  that  this  life  is  in  his  Son.  Thus  We  have  to 
this  day  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the  Spirit,  the 
Water,  and  the  Blood. 

These  remarks.  Sir,  are  not  intended  to  imply  any  thing 
against  the  hypothesis  that  circumcision  in  the  flesh  denot- 
ed the  necessity  of  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  nor  that 
baptism  is  an  emblem  of  the  washing  of  regeneration  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  theory  now  advanced,  respecting  bap- 
tism, will  rather  support  that  hypothesis  than  militate 
against  it.  For  on  that  solemn  occasion,  of  which  it  is 
supposed  baptism  is  the  memorial^  the  Son  of  God  was 
endued  with  the  Spirit,  that  he  might  baptize  rvith  the  Ho- 
ly  Ghost,  and  that  he  might  give  repentance  and  remission 
of  sins  unto  Israel. 

A  part  of  what  is  contained  in  this  Letter  is  design»-^d  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  solution  of  a  difficulty,  which  has 


168     An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture* 

been  supposed  to  arise  from  the  language  used  in  the  Apos- 
tles' commission  ;  to  which  some  attention  mav  be  paid  in 
the  next  Letter. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

It  may  be  worthy  of  special  noti-e,  that  the  Sabbath,  cir- 
cumcision, the  Passover,  the  Lord's  day,  and  the  Lord's 
Sapper,  have  all  been  regarded  as  instituted  mt- morials  of 
interesting  events.  Is  it  not  then  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  baptism  is  a  memorial  of  some  extraordinary  event  I 
And  what  event  is  so  likely  to  be  the  one^  as  that  in  which 
the  long  expected  Messiah  was  inaugurated  and  announced 
to  the  world  t  If  this  h}  pothesis  be  correct,  I  do  not  see 
how  we  could  well  spare  the  controverted  texts. 


LETTER  VIL 

Th^  Apostles'*  Cornmissio?!  considered. 
REV.  SIR, 

AS  was  proposed  in  mv  last  Letter,  the  language  of  the 
Aposdes'  commission,  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19.  shall  now  be 
considered. 

"  And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying.  All 
power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye, 
therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

This  text.  Sir,  has  occasioned  me  more  inquiry  than 
aiy  other  text  in  the  Bible.  And  it  becomes  me  not  to  be 
confident  that  all  m\  inquiry  has  issued  m  obtaining  the 
ideas  which  Christ  meant  to  express.  But  if  there  be  no 
ftiiUire  in  the  attempt  to  prove  that  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
not  intended  a  distinct  Ptrson,  it  concerns  you  and  others, 
as  much  as  it  does  me,  to  endeavor  to  obtain  some  mean- 
ing to  the  text  now  before  us,  consistent  v.  ith  that  idea  of 
the  Spirit. — Believing  that  point  is  established  by  the  gen» 
eral  tenor  of  Scripture  language,  the  result  of  my  inquiries 
respecting  this  text  will  now  be  submitted,  hoping  that  if  it 
be  erroneous,  you  may  be  able  to  detect  my  error. 


An  Examination  of  dificult  Passages  of  Scripture*      169 

That  the  text,  as  it  stands  in  our  translation,  does  very 
naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  baptizing  by  the  authority  of 
three  Persons^  is  admitted  ;  and  of  course  it  suggests  the 
idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  Person.  But  when  this  view 
of  the  text  is  urged,  with  great  confidence,  as  the  only  pos^ 
sible  meanings  there  r&  perhaps  one  thing  overlooked^  which 
ought  to  be  considered  ;  and  some  things  taken  for  granted^ 
which  require  proof  ih^t  is  not  easily  obtained. 

In  the  verse  already  quoted,  immediately  preceding  the 
one  so  much  relied  on,  Christ  had  said,  "  All  power  is 
given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth."  And  what  is  here 
asserted  appears  to  be  overlooked.  It  was.  Sir,  on  this  very 
ground,  that  he  added,  "  Go  ye,  therefore^  into  all  the 
world,"  &c.  Now,  if  Christ  had  a// «z/?//d?r?Yy  in  heaven 
and  earth,  his  authority  must  have  been  sufficient  for  bap- 
tizing in  his  own  name,  without  connecting  any  other.— 
Nor  does  it  appear  very  natural  to  suppose  that  Christ 
would  say  to  this  effect,  I  have  all  authority  ;  go  ye,  there" 
fore^  and  baptize  by  the  joint  authority  of  myself  and  txvo 
other  Persons.  And  has  it  not  been  also  too  much  over- 
looked, that  we  have  no  example  for  baptizing  in  an)  other 
name  than  that  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ?  If  it  be  a  matter  of  so 
much  moment  as  has  been  supposed,  that  baptism  should 
be  adm  nistered  in  the  name  of  three  Persons^  is  it  not 
somewhat  extraordinary  that  we  are  not  able  co  find  so 
much  as  orie  example  of  the  Apostles  to  support  the  prac- 
tice t 

But  perhaps  some  things  are  taken  for  granted  as  well 
as  overlooked.  The  things  which  seem  to  have  been  taken 
for  granted,  that  require  proof,  are  these — 

1.  That  the  preposition^  which  is  translated  z/z,  does 
not  mean  into^  to^  or  for — 

2.  That  the  word  name^  unquestionably  means  au- 
thority— 

3.  That  the  design  of  Christ,  in  the  passage,  was  to 
show  the  authority  by  xvhich  baptism  is  to  be  administered^ 
and  not  the  end  for  -which  it  is  to  be  administered. 

Respecting  the  Greek  preposition  eis^  you  are  doubtless 
sensible  that  this  is  much  more  frequently  translated  inio^ 
tOj  or  for^  than  it  is  in.  And  had  either  of  those  words 
been  used  in  the  text  instead  of  in^  this  would  have  entire- 
ly precluded  the  idea  of  baptizing  by  the  authority  of  three 
Persons. 


170     An  Examination  ofdipcuh  Passages  of  Scripfure^, 

And  the  word  name  is  abundantly  used  in  the  Scriptures, 
as  of  the  same  import  as  the  word  character  r  it  is  also  used 
for  renozvn^  g^ory^  or  praise  ;  and  it  is^  sometimes  used  as 
of  similar  import  with  the  word  memorial.  In  one  or  other 
of  these  senses,  the  word  is  used  much  more  frequently 
than  as  importing  authority. 

It  is,  Sir,  my  present  opinion  of  the  words  in  dispute, 
that  it  was  the  design  of  Christ  to  express  the  object  or 
END /or  xvhich^  and  not  the  authority  by  rvhich^  baptism 
is  to  be  administered  ;  and  that  the  preposition  would  be 
more  properly  translated  so  as  to  read  "  to  the  name,"  or 
"ybr  the  name,"  than  "  in  the  name." 

Some  reasons  or  analogies,  to  justify  this  explanation  or 
construction  of  the  text^  may  now  be  stated. 

1.  This  construction  agrees  with  the  character  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  already  illustrated  from  the  general  and 
natural  import  of  Scripture  language* 

2.  This  construction  corresponds  with  the  idea  that  bap- 
tism is  a  standing  witness  and  memorial  in  the  church,  that 
the  Son  of  God  came  by  xvater^  and  was  publicly  inaugu- 
rated, endued,  and  announced,  as  the  promised  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  God. 

3.  it  agrees  with  the  frequent  use  of  the  word  name^ 
as  signifying  renown,  glor}^,  praise,  or  memorial. 

When  monuments  are  erected,  or  memorials  instituted,^ 
to  perpetuate  the  memory  of  illustrious  characters  or  illus- 
trious events,  renown,  glory,  and  praise,  are  the  object  of 
these  memorials*  When  memorials  are  instituted  to  per- 
petuate the  memory  of  remarkable  and  distinguishingevents 
of  divine  providence,  they  are  designed  for  the  renown, 
glory,  and  praise  of  God. 

4.  When,  in  the  New  Testament,  any  thing  is  said  to 
be  done,  or  required  to  be  done,  for  a  witness,  for  a  sign, 
for  a  testimony,  for  a  memorial,  or  to  the  glory,  or  to  the 
praise  of  God,,  this  same  preposition,  eis^  is  used,  and 
translatedyir  or  to.  And  can  one  instance  to  the  contrary 
be  found  in  the  New  Testament  I  Some  instances  of  each 
will  now  be  exhibited. 

"  There  was  a  man  came  from  God,  whose  name  was> 
John  ;  the  same  came /or  a  witness*^ — ^'^  And  the  Gospel 
of  the  Kingdom  shall  be  preached  in  all  the  world  for  p. 
witness  to  all  nations." 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture,     171 

*'  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Wheresoever  this  Gospel  shall 
be  preached  in  the  whole  world,  there  shall  also  this,  that 
this  woman  hath  done,  be  told  for  a  meinorial  of  her." 
*'  Thy  prayers  and  thine  alms  are  co«ie  up.  for  a  memoriat 
before  God.^ 

"^  And  whosoever  will  not  receive  you,  nor  hear  you, 
shake  off  the  dust  from  under  your  feet,  as  a  testimony 
against  them.  And  it  shall  turn  to  you  for  a  testimony*^"* 
*'  Offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded,  for  a  testi?nony 
unto  them." 

"  Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children 
by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  his  will,  to  tht  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace."  "And 
that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord, 
Xo  the  glory  of  God  the  Father." 

5.  When  any  thing  is  represented  as  done  in  the  7iame 
of  another,  (and  in  the  name  certainly  means  by  the  au' 
thority)  a  different  preposition  is  usually,  if  not  uniformly, 
used  in  the  Greek. 

When  Christ  says,  "  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name^** 
and  "  the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name^"*  the  Greek 
preposition  en^  not  eis^  is  used.  So  likewise  in  this  text, 
"  In  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  devils,"  &r. 

Accordingly  the  apostles  performed  miracles  in  the  name 
of  Jesus*  Thus  said  Peter  to  the  impotent  man,  "  In  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  rise  up  and  walk." 
Thus  Paul  said  to  the  spirit  of  divination,  with  which  the 
woman  was  possessed,  ''^  I  command  thee,  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  come  out  of  her." 

In  the  following  instances,  eis  is  used,  "  Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name''* — "  Baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus" — "  Lest  any  should  say,  I 
baptized  in  my  own  name^  But  in  all  these  instances, 
name  may  mean  glory ^  and  the  translation  might  have  been 
for  the  nam€^  that  is,  for  the  glory  or  honor. 

No  reasonable  objection,  it  is  presumed,  can  be  stated 
against  thus  construing  the  text  relative  to  the  saints  meet- 
ing or  gathering  in  Christ's  name,  Meetingyor  his  name^ 
or  for  his  glory  ^  would  undoubtedly  be  as  correct  and  as 
striking  an  idea. 

Nor  is  it  at  all  unnatural  to  suppose,  that  Paul's  fear  wa?, 
that  it  should  be  thought  that  he  was  seeking  his  own  glorify 
gn4  not  the  glory  of  Christ.     And  is  it  not  to  be  feared. 


1 72      An  Examination  of  dijicult  Passages  of  Scripture. 

that  some  at  this  day  do  reallv  h^c^ixx^for  their  own  name^, 
or  their  own  glorij  or  praise  P 

It  has  indeed  been  observed,  that  we  have  no  example 
of  the  apostles'  baptizing  in  any  other  name  than  that  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  And  now  it  is  not  doubted,  that  thev  baptized 
by  the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  yet  that  might  not  be 
the  meaning  of  th&  phrase  which  is  translated  ?«  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  It  might  as  naturally  be  ybr  the  name^ 
for  the  glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  And  to  baptize  for  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus^  would  amount  to  the  same  as  bap- 
tizingy^r  a  TWf-worirt/of  what  was  done  by  the  Father,  the 
S<^n^  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  prove  that  he  is  the  Son  of 
God  and  the  Savior  of  the  world. 

In  this  text,  "  There  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  the 
earth,  the  Spirit^  the  Water,  and  the  Blood,  and  thf  se 
three  agree  in  one,"  the  same  preposition  eis  is  used.  To 
express  the  sense,  the  translators  have  inserted  the  verb 
cgree^  which  has  no  place  in  the  original  ;  but  had  they 
strictly  regarded  analogy,  they  might  have  expressed  the 
same  idea  as  correctly,  and  perhaps  more  forcibly,  by  the 
preposition  only,  "  these  three  are^or  one,"  that  is,  for 
one  end:,  as  testimony  to  prove  that  "  God  has  given  to  us 
eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son.'* 

Thus,  Sir,  you  have  before  you  some  of  the  analogies  which 
at  least  seem  to  justify  me  in  supposing,  that  it  was  the 
design  of  Christ,  in  the  apostles'  commission,  to  express 
the  END  for  which^  and  not  merely  the  authority  by 
which,  baptism  is  to  be  administered.  The  authority  by 
Tvhich,  is  indeed  expressed  in  the  introductory  words,  "All 
power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  earth  ;  go  ye, 
therefore  ;"  but  the  clause  in  dispute  appears  to  me  not  de- 
signed to  re-express  the  authority,  but  to  show  the  end  for 
which  baptism  w^as  instituted. 

Can  you.  Sir,  produce  such  analogies  in  support  of  the 
common  construction  of  this  passage  ?  Can  you  produce 
one  analogy  from  the  Bible  which  will  justify  you  in  saying 
that  this  text' requires  us  to  baptize  by  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  distinct  Person  ? 

If  the  construction  now  given  of  the  passage  should  be 
admitted  and  adopted,  it  v  ould  occasion  no  change  in  the 
form  of  words  to  be  used  in  baptizing,  but  simply  that  of 
using  to  or  for  instead  oi  in.  The  adoption  would,  how- 
ever, open  a  door  for  much  to  be  pertinentl;^  and  profitably 


An  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture*     IT'S 

said,  respecting  that  momentous  event  in  which  the  prom- 
ised Messiah  was  publicly  inaugurated^  endued^  and  aU' 
nounced  to  the  world  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  the  grace 
and  glory  which  was  displayed  on  that  memorable  occa- 
sion. 

In  this  inauguration  we  may  contemplate  a  fulfilment  of 
what  had  been  promised  -And predicted^  and  also  of  what  had 
been  typified  in  the  manner  in  which  Prophets,  Priests, 
and  Kings,  had  been  invested  with  their  respective  offices, 
T\\t  holy  oil  \\?LS  poured  on  the  heads  of  Prophets  and 
Kings,  as  an  emblem  of  the  Holy  Spirit^  with  which  the 
M  ssiah  was  to  be  endued.  And  Aaron  was  first  -washed 
with  water,  and  then  had  the  oil  of  consecration  poured  on 
his  head,  as  the  Son  of  God  was  first  washed  or  baptized^ 
2C(\A\}tvtXi  endued  vi\\k\\k\^  Spirit  of  God,  And  if  we  may  ^ 
connect,  in  one  view,  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament 
forms  of  inauguration  or  ordination  ;  in  that  event  we  may  , 
behold  the  Messiah  condescending  to  come  to  John,  his 
herald,  to  be  -washed  with  water  as  Aaron  was  ;  then  we 
behold  him  making  his  own  ordination  prayer  ;  and  what 
is  still  more  august,  we  may  behold  the  Eternal  Father 
performing  the  solemn  rites  oi  laying  on  of  hands  ^znd  giving 
the  Right  Hand  of  Fellowship — He  first  sent  down  his  Ho- 
ly  Spirit^  which  is  often  represented  as  his  Hand ;  this 
abode  on  the  Son  ;  then,  with  an  audible  voice,  God  pro- 
claimed, in  the  ears  of  attending  angels  and  men,  "  This* 

IS    MY    BELOVED    SoN,    IN    WHOM    I    AM    WELL     PLEASED." 

A  scene  more  august,  and  more  expressive  of  grace  and, 
C/LORY,  had  perhaps  never  been  seen  in  heaven  nor  earth. 

POSTSCRIPT. 

LET  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  opinion,  that 
baptism  was  instituted  as  a  memorial  of  the  inauguration  of 
the  Messiah,  is  not  viewed  by  me  as  essential  to  the  main 
theory  respecting  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The 
opinion  resulted  from  a  serious  inquiry  into  the  meaning 
of  Chrisfs  coming  by  Wuter^  and  of  the  JVater^s  bearing 
•witness.  It  is  proposed,  for  examination,  as  that  which 
appears  to  me  probably  true.  But  the  main  things  had  in 
view  do  not  depend  on  the  correctness  of  that  opinion.  Va- 
rious reasons  may  be  given  for  the  use  of  the  terms  Holy 
Spirit^  in  the  apostles'  commission,  which  do  not  imply  the 


174     An  Examination  of  dtffici^lt  Passages  of  Scripture, 

personality  of  the  Spirit.  But  what,  Sir,  if  no  such  reason 
could  be  given  by  Ine,  or  by  yourself  ?I  Shall  one  clause 
of  a  text,  of  doubtful  import^  be  admitted  as  prvofoi  -Afact^ 
in  opposition  to  the  general  tenor  oi plain  and  inspired  rep- 
resentations  P  IV! ore,  it  is  believed,  than  two  hundred 
times,  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  is  brought  into  view  in  the 
Scriptures,in  a  manner  which  clearly  conveys  the  idea,that, 
b}'  the  Spirit,  a  self-existent  Person  is  not  intended.  And 
shall  one^  txvo,  or  three  texts,  which  seem  to  favor  your  opin- 
ion, be  allowed  inore  zveight  than  two  hundred  others  which 
are  clearly  in  opposition  f  Suppose,  Sir,  that  after  long 
and  laborious  inquiry,  I  could  obtain  no  satisfactory  expo- 
sition of  the  disputed  clause  in  the  apostles'  commission, 
which  would  accord  with  my  present  views  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ;  and  on  that  ground  should  give  up  the  whole  theo- 
ry, and  return  to  ?/(7wr  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ;  what  then 
would  be  my  situation  ?  I  must  cease  to  reflect,  or  must 
take  into  view  the  numerous  texts  which  naturally  oppose 
your  idea  of  the  Spirit,  with  the  multitude  which  are  op- 
posed to  the  self  existence  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  many 
thousands  which  distinctly  represent  Gpd  as  one  Person 
only*  On  the  whole,  then,  instead  oi  one  perplexing  text^ 
I  should  have  to  encounter  many  thousands,  each  of  which, 
according  to  the  natural  import  of  language,  would  be  op- 
posed to  the  doctrine  that  I  should  profess  to  believe.  If 
you  will  show  me  how  those  numerous  classes  of  texts  can 
be  fairly  reconc'led  to  your  doctrine,  and  how  the  repre- 
sentations of  Divine  love  in  the  Gospel  can  be  consistent 
with  your  views  of  the  Son  of  God,  you  will  easily  reclaim 
me  from  my  supposed  error.  For  whatever  may  have  been 
your  views  of  my  feelings  or  my  motives^  this  is  a  fact,  that 
it  is  far  from  being  a  pleasant  thing  to  me  to  be  obliged  to 
dissent  in  opinion  from  such  a  muitityde  of  vToithy  charac- 
ters. 

There  is  one  consideration  which  will  probably  have  in* 
fluence  against  the  admission  of  the  sentiments  of  these 
Letters,  viz.  That  the  writer  is  a  person  obscurely  situated^ 
oi private  education^  and  unpromising  advantages.  All  this 
inay,  in  truth,  be  said.  But  sometimes  God  has  "  chosen" 
%veak  and  unpromising  instruments  to  carry  on  his  work, 
^^  that  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his  presence*"*  Besides,  if 
f'  the  Scriptures  were  inspired  to  instruct  common  readers^ 
by  using  words  according  to  their  common  acceptation^"*  it 


CONCLUSION  lis 

is  j&(?55z^/e  that  a  person,  under  all  my  disadvantages,  may- 
investigate  the  truth,  by  making  the  Scriptures  his  only 
guide.  It  has  been  no  part  of  my  object  to  invent  a  new- 
theory.  My  aim  has  been  to  investigate,  represent,  and 
support,  such  sentiments  as  are  revealed  in  the  Bible,  ad- 
mitting words  to  be  used  "  according  to  their  common  ac- 
ceptation," comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture.  If,  on 
due  examination,  it  shall  be  found  that  any  sentiment,  in 
these  Letters,  may  be  properly  ascribed  to  me  as  the  au- 
thor, let  it  be  rejected.  But  you  will  allow,  that  senti- 
ments, of  which  God  is  the  Author,  should  not  be  reject- 
ed, whoever  may  be  the  writer.  '^  Can  there  any  good 
thing  come  out  ot  Nazareth  ?"  This,  you  will  remember, 
was  a  question  which  once  arose  in  the  mind  of  an"  Israelite 
indeed  j"  and,  perhaps,  on  the  same  ground,  thousands 
of  others,  to  their  own  ruin,  rejected thQ  Savior  of  the 
WORLD.  On  no  better  ground,  it  may  be,  that  thousands 
will  reject  the  sentiments  contained  in  these  Letters,  even 
if  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  Oracles  of  God. 


LETTER  VIIL 

CONCLUSIOK 

REV.  SIR, 

THIS  series  of  Letters  has  already  been  extended  be- 
yond my  original  design.  It  shall  now  be  closed.  I  am 
not  insensible,  that  publishing  mv  views  exposes  me  to  at- 
tacks from  every  denomination  of  professing  Christians. 
Yet  you  will  not  doubt  my  sincerity  in  saying,  that  no  man 
can  have  less  desire  to  be  engaged  in  public  controversy.— 
But  being  not  my  own,  it  would  be  wrong  to  suppress  what 
to  me  appears  honorary  to  Christ,  for  the  sake  of  private 
ease,  quiet,  or  popularity. 

Freedom  has  been  used  in  examining  your  opinions,  and 
the  opinions  of  others  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  it  has  been 
an  object  of  my  rare  to  cultivate,  in  my  heart,  feelings  of 
tenderness  and  respect  for  my  fellow  Christians  of  different 
opinions.  In  writing,  it  has  been  my  aim  not  to  w^ound 
your  feelings,  or  the  feelings  of  any  other  man.  While 
writing  this  last  Letter  of  the  series,  my  conscience  bears 


iriS  CONCLUSION-. 

me  witness,  that  not  one  sentence  in  the  whole  has  been 
dictated  by  the  feelhigs  of  displeasure  against  any  one  of 
my  ff  How  creatures. 

These  Letters  are  addressed  to  you,  in  hope,  that  if 
there  must  be  an  opponent^  it  may  be  one  who  is  able  and 
Tvilling  to  mve<st7gate ;  and  one  who  has  learned  of  Him 
who  was  meek  and  lowly  in  heart.  This  being  your  cha- 
racter, should  vou  see  cause  to  answer  my  Letters,  you 
w  ill  look  thoroughly  and  prayerfully  into  the  subject,  and 
not  write  at  random.  You  will  not  shelter  yourself  under 
xhv  popularity  of  your  own  theory,  and  on  that  ground  think 
yourself  justified  in  treating  with  contempt  the  views  of 
your  friend.  You  will  not  ^/?e^r  at  arguments  which  you 
cannot  refute  by  fair  reasoning  ;  nor  substitute  sarcastic 
and  censorious  declamation,  for  argument.  You  will  not 
misrepresent  vay  real  views ^  for  the  sake  oi  hiiv'm^  something 
before  you  which  you  can  easily  refute,-— lint  if  you  view 
me  in  an  error,  you  will  pity  and  pray  for  me  ;  and,  in  the 
spirit  of  meekness  and  love,  you  will  endeavor  to  show  me 
my  mistakes  and  errors.  And  you  will  write  as  one  who 
expects  to  give  account.  And  if  I  am  in  pn  error,  be  as- 
sured, Sir,  that  it  is  my  cordial  desire  that  you  may  be 
enabled  to  detect  it,  and  to  set  it  before  me,  and  before 
the  world,  in  a  convincing  light. 

You  will  readily  perceive,  that  there  may  be  mistakes  in 
explaining  some  particular  texts,  and  yet  the  theory  may 
be  correct.  In  attempting  to  explain  so  many  texts,  it  is 
very  possible  that  there  are  instances  of  incorrectness.  For 
one  so  fallib  e,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  my  labor  has  been 
to  investigate  the  real  truth,  -wxthovxt  perverting  or  misap- 
plying the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  it  has  been  my  sincere  de- 
sire to  make  the  theory  square  with  the  Scriptures  as  a 
Divine  Standard,  and  not  to  make  the  Scriptures  bend 
to  the  theory. 

Should  you  think  it  to  be  your  duty  to  express  your  dis- 
approbation of  the  theory,  by  way  of  a  Review  in  some 
periodical  work,  you  will  give  an  impartial  representation 
xii  vciW  real  sentiments^  that  those  who  read  the  Review 
may  have  some  opportunity  to  judge  as  to  the  correctness 
of  the  opinion  you  may  express. 

After  you  shal<  have  written  your  objections  by  way  of 
Review,  be  pleased  to  turn  to  John  xvii.  and  review  the 
prayer  of  the  Son  of  God ;  examine  the  natural  import  of 


C0NCLUSI02r.  177 

every  sentence  distinctly  :  then  ask  yourself  these  questions 
— Does  not  every  sentence  in  this  yraytr perfectly  harmonize 
with  the  sentiments  against  whlcn  I  have  been  writing  ?— 
Yea,  does  not  this  prayer  clearly  contain  th^^  principal  sen- 
timents  which  the  writer  of  the  Letters  has  aimed  to  estab- 
lish ? — If  he  had  forged  a  prayer  for  the  Son  of  God,  in 
support  of  his  own  theory,  could  he  have  written  any  thing 
more  to  his  purpose  than  that  which  really  proceeded  from 
the  lips  of  Christ  ? — Are  not,  then,  my  objections  to  his 
views  as  really  objections  to  the  sentiments  contained  ia 
the  prayer  of  the  Son  of  God  t 

And  may  that  Divine  Lord,  in  whom  is  our  hope^ 
lead  us  to  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of  himself;  and  grant, 
that  not  only  you  and  I,  but  all  who  may  read  these  Letters, 
may  experience  the  truth  of  the  declaration  which  he  made 
in  his  prayer  to  the  Father,  "  And  this  is  life  eternal,  to 
know  THEE  the  only  true  God,  and  Jrsus  Christ  whom 
thou  hast  sent."  And  while  it  shall  be  our  lot  to  differ  in 
sentiment,  let  us  daily  unite  in  the  prayer  of  Christy  that 
yjue  all  may  be  one^  even  as  He  and  the  Father  are  one. 
Adieu. 

NOAH   WORCESTER. 


►<©>• 


ERRATA, 

Page    5,  /i?ie  36,  y^r  mind  rpflfi^  hand.lft^  ^-a-' 
S5^  Ihie  25,  for  are  read  or. 
44,  /i/ze  36,  for  sa  r^^fl?  as. 

46,  line    9,  /or  by  things  read  by  the  things,  8j;C», 

47,  /me  1 7",  /or  reject  read  respect. 
49,  line  21^  for  as  read  is. 

59,  /i/2e  32,  dele  the  word  to. 
Ill,  line  25^  for  pay  rea^  pray. 
126,  line  16^  for  So  far  read  For. 
133,  /irie  25,  for  there  rca;^  these. 
158,  line    %  for  any  other  r^a<^  anothei:. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 
On  the  Unity  of  God. 

LETTER  I. 

introductory  Statements  and  Observations,       -     page       ^ 

LETTER  IL 
Personality  dejined  and  illustrated^        -----       12 

LETTER  IIL 
The  Scripture  use  of  Pronouns  and  Verbs  in  relation 
to  God. -     -     ..     .       ir 

LETTER  IV. 

The  Language  of  good  Writers  in  favor  ofxvhat  they 
7nean  to  deny,     -----------       26 

LETTER  V. 

The  Mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity  unfolded,     -     -       29 


PART  IL 

On  the  real  Divinity  and  Glory  of  Christ. 

LETTER  L 
Jesus  Christ  truly  the  Son  of  God,     ,     -     -     -     -       33 

LETTER  IL 

Additional  Evidence  that  Christ  is  truly  the  Son  of  God,       41 

LETTER  IIL 
No  Absurdity  in  the  Hypothesis  that  Christ  is  truly 

the  Son  of  God.        --.--.----       46 

LETTER  IV. 

The  Divine  Dignity  of  the  Son  of  God,     -     -     *     -       53 

LETTER  V. 

How  the  Son  of  God  became  the  Son  of  Man.       -     -       68 

LETTER  VI. 

The  preceding  Doctrines  all  implied  in  Phil.  ii.  5 — 1 1 .       76 

LETTER  VIL 

Thoughts  on  the  Majesty  of  the  Son  of  God;  his  sim- 
ple and  his  complex  Character.     ------       93 


TABLE  OF  COT^TENTS. 

LETTER  Vlir. 

Diviife  Honors  due  to, the  Son  of  God.     -     -     .     .       9^ 

LETTER  IX. 

The  two  Theories  compared,  in  respect  td  Christ,  con- 
sidered as  a  Sufferer  on  the  Cross,  as  the  Savior  of 
the  World,  and  the  Lord  of  the  Universe.     -     -     -     114 

PART  Hi. 

0/?  tbe  Character  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
LETTER  L 
By  the  Holy  Spirit  is  intended  the  same  as  the  Ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead, -_,.     123 

LETTER  IL 

Some  Passages  considered,  which  have  been  supposed 
to  support  the  Personality  of  the  Holy  Spirit,     -     -     132 
LETTER  in. 

Other  Considerations,  to  shozv,  that  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  not  intended  a  distinct  Person.     -     -     -     -     -      isg 


PART  IV. 

^n  Examination  of  difficult  Passages  of  Scripture. 

LETTER  L 

Pides  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied,     -     -     -     145 

LETTER  n. 
A  fifth  Rule  of  Interpretation  stated  and  applied.     -     l49 

LETTER  in. 

Other   Texts  considered,        --------1^3 

LETTER  V. 
The  Son  of  God  not  the  same  Person  as  the  God  of 
Israel,       -     - I5- 

LETTER  VL 

The  Import  of  1  John   F.  7.     -------     160 

LETTER  Vn. 

The  Apostles''   Commission    considered,      -     -     -      -     168 

LETTER  VIIL 
Conclusion,     ----" 175 


TRIBUTE    TO    THE   MEMORY 


REV.   NOAH   WORCESTER,   D.  D. 


A     DISCOURSE 


DELIVERED      IN      BOSTOJN, 


NOVEMBER  12,  1837, 


BY    U^ILLIAM    E.    (HANKING. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED     BY     JOSEPH     DOWE. 

1837. 


CHRISTIAN    REGISTER     OFFICE:     MINOT     PRATT,     PRINTER. 


The  circumstances,  under  which  the  following  discourse  has 
been  requested  for  the  press,  forbid  the  author  to  withhold  it ; 
and  yet  he  is  aware,  that  it  must  disappoint  those  who  may  look 
to  it  for  some  extended  notice  of  the  life  and  character  of  the  ex- 
cellent man,  by  whose  death  it  was  occasioned.  In  preparing  it, 
the  author  had  time  to  give  only  his  first  recollections  and  impres- 
sions ;  nor  does  he  think  it  worth  his  while  to  make  additions 
now,  as  he  trusts,  that  an  autobiography,  left  by  Dr  Worcester, 
will  be  given  to  the  pubhc,  in  which  case  all  other  notices  will  be 
of  little  value. 


DISCOURSE 


JOHN  XIII.  34. 

A  NEW   COMMANDMEJVT  1   GIVE  XJNTO  YOU,    THAT  YE    LOVE    ONK    ANOTH- 
ER ;    AS    I    HAVE   LOVED  YOU,  THAT  YE  ALSO   LOVE  ONE  ANOTHER. 

It  was  the  great  purpose  of  Christ  to  create  the  world 
anew,  to  make  a  deep,  broad,  enduring  change  in  hu- 
man beings.  He  came  to  breathe  his  own  soul  into 
men,  to  bring  them  through  faith  into  a  connexion  and 
sympathy  with  himself,  by  which  they  would  receive 
his  divine  virtue,  as  the  branches  receive  quickening  in- 
fluences from  the  vine  in  which  they  abide,  and  the 
limbs  from  the  head  to  which  they  are  vitally  bound. 

It  was  especially  the  purpose  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  re- 
deem men  from  the  slavery  of  selfishness,  to  raise  them 
to  a  divine,  disinterested  love.  By  this  he  intended 
that^is  followers  should  be  known,  that  his  religion 
should  be  broadly  divided  from  all  former  institutions. 
He  meant  that  this  should  be  worn  as  a  frontlet  on  the 
brow,  should  beam  as  a  light  from  the  countenance, 
should  shed  a  grace  over  the  manners,  should  give  tones 
of  sympathy  to  the  voice,  and  especially  should  give  en- 
ergy to  the  will,  energy  to  do  and  suffer  for  others' 
good.  Here  is  one  of  the  grand  distinctions  of  Christi- 
anity, incomparably  grander  than  all  the  mysteries  which 


6 

have  borne  its  name.  Our  knowledge  of  Christianity 
is  to  be  measured,  not  by  the  laboriousness  with  which 
we  have  dived  into  the  depths  of  theological  systems, 
but  by  our  comprehension  of  the  nature,  extent,  energy 
and  glory  of  that  disinterested  principle,  which  Christ 
enjoined  as  our  likeness  to  God,  and  as  the  perfection 
of  human  nature. 

This  disinterestedness  of  Christianity  is  to  be  learned 
from  Christ  himself,  and  from  no  other.  It  had  dawn- 
ed on  the  world  before  in  illustrious  men,  in  prophets, 
sages  and  legislators.  But  its  full  orb  rose  at  Bethlehem. 
All  the  preceding  history  of  the  world  gives  but  broken 
hints  of  the  love  which  shone  forth  from  Christ.  Nor 
can  this  be  learned  from  his  precepts  alone.  We  must 
go  to  his  life,  especially  to  his  cross.  His  cross  was  the 
throne  of  his  love.  There  it  reigned,  there  it  triumph- 
ed. On  the  countenance  of  the  crucified  Savior  there 
was  one  expression  stronger  than  of  dying  agony, — the 
expression  of  calm,  meek,  unconquered,  boundless  love. 
I  repeat  it,  the  cross  alone  can  teach  us  the  energy 
and  grandeur  of  the  love,  which  Christ  came  to  impart. 
There  we  see  its  illimitableness  ;  for  he  died  for  the 
whole  world.  There  we  learn  its  inexhaustible  alaca- 
bility  ;  for  he  died  for  the  very  enemies  whose  hands 
w^ere  reeking  with  his  blood.  There  we  learn  its  self-im- 
molating strength;  for  he  resigned  every  good  of  life, and 
endured  intensest  pains,  in  the  cause  of  our  race.  There 
we  learn  its  spiritual  elevation  ;  for  he  died  not  to  en- 
rich men  with  outward  and  w^orldly  goods,  but  to  breathe 
new  life,  health,  purity,  into  the  soul.  There  we  learn 
its  far-reaching  aim  ;  for  he  died  to  give  immortality  of 
happiness.     There  we  learn  its  tenderness  and  sympa- 


thy ;  for  amidst  his  cares  for  the  world,  his  heart  over- 
flowed with  gratitude  and  love  for  his  honored  mother. 
There,  in  a  word,  we  learn  its  Divinity  ;  for  he  suffered 
through  his  participation  of  the  spirit  and  his  devotion 
to  the  purposes  of  God,  through  unity  of  heart  and  will 
with  his  Heavenly  Father. 

It  is  one  of  our  chief  privileges,  as  Christians,  that  we 
have  in  Jesus  Christ  a  revelation  of  Perfect  Love.  This 
great  idea  comes  ibrth  to  us  from  his  life  and  teaching, 
as  a  distinct  and  bright  reality.  To  understand  this  is 
to  understand  Christianity.  To  call  forth  in  us  a  cor- 
responding energy  of  disinterested  affection,  is  the  mis- 
sion which  Christianity  has  to  accomplish  on  the   earth. 

There  is  one  characteristic  of  the  love  of  Christ,  to 
which  the  Christian  world  are  now  waking  up  as  from 
long  sleep,  and  which  is  to  do  more  than  all  things  for 
the  renovation  of  the  world.  He  loved  individual  man. 
Before  his  time,  the  most  admired  form  of  goodness  was 
patriotism.  Men  loved  their  country,  but  cared  noth- 
ing for  their  fellow-creatures  beyond  the  limits  of  coun- 
try, and  cared  little  for  the  individual  within  those  lim- 
its, devoting  themselves  to  public  interests  and  especial- 
ly to  what  was  called  the  glory  of  the  State.  The  leg- 
islator, seeking  by  his  institutions  to  exalt  his  country 
above  its  rivals,  and  the  warrior,  fastening  its  yoke  on  its 
foes  and  crowning  it  with  bloody  laurels,  were  the 
great  natnes  of  earlier  times.  Christ  loved  man,  not 
masses  of  men  ;  loved  each  and  all,  and  not  a  particular 
country  and  class.  The  human  being  was  dear  to  him 
for  his  own  sake  ;  not  for  the  spot  of  earth  on  which  he 
lived,  not  for  the  language  he  spoke,  not  for  his  rank  in 
life,  but  for  his  humanity,  for  his  spiritual  nature,  for  the 


8 

image  of  God  in  which  he  was  m^de.  Nothing  out- 
ward in  human  condition  engrossed  the  notice,  or  nar- 
rowed the  sympathies  of  Jesus.  He  looked  to  the  hu- 
man soul.  That  he  loved.  That  divine  spark  he  de- 
sired to  cherish,  no  matter  where  it  dwelt,  no  matter 
how  it  was  dimmed.  He  loved  man  for  his  own  sake, 
and  all  men  without  exclusion  or  exception.  His  min- 
istry was  not  confined  to  a  church,  a  chosen  congrega- 
tion. On  the  mount  he  opened  his  mouth  and  spake 
to  the  promiscuous  multitude.  From  the  hosom  of  the 
lake  he  delivered  his  parables  to  the  throng  which  lin- 
ed its  shores.  His  church  was  nature,  the  unconfined 
air  and  earth  ;  and  his  truths,  like  the  blessed  influences 
of  nature's  sunshine  and  rain,  fell  on  each  and  all.  He 
lived  in  the  highway,  the  street,  the  places  of  concourse, 
and  welcomed  the  eager  crowds  which  gathered  round 
him  from  every  sphere  and  rank  of  life.  Nor  was  it  to 
crowds  that  his  sympathy  was  confined.  He  did  not 
need  a  multitude  to  excite  him.  The  humblest  individ- 
ual drew  his  regards.  He  took  the  little  child  into  his 
arms,  and  blessed  it ;  he  heard  the  beggar  crying  to  him 
by  the  wayside  where  he  sat  for  alms ;  and  in  the  an- 
guish of  death,  he  administered  consolation  to  a  male- 
factor expiring  at  his  side.  In  this  shone  forth  the  di- 
vine wisdom  as  well  as  love  of  Jesus,  that  he  understood 
the  worth  of  a  human  being.  So  truly  did  he  compre- 
hend it,  that,  as  I  think,  he  would  have  counted  himself 
repaid  for  all  his  teachings  and  mighty  works,  for  all  his 
toils,  and  sufferings,  and  bitter  death,  by  the  redemption 
of  a  single  soul.  His  love  to  every  human  being  sur- 
passed that  of  a  parent  to  an  only  child.  Jesus  was 
great  in  all  things,  but  in   nothing  greater  than   in  his 


comprehension  of  the  worth  of  a  human  spirit.  Before 
his  time  no  one  dreamed  of  it.  The  many  had  been 
vsacrificed  to  the  few.  The  mass  of  men  had  been  trod- 
den under  foot.  History  had  been  but  a  record  cf  strug- 
gles and  institutions,  which  breathed  nothing  so  strongly 
as  contempt  of  the  huhian  race. 

Jesus  was  the  first  philanthropist.  He  brought  with' 
him  a  new  era,  the  era  of  philanthropy ;  and  from  his 
time  a  new  spirit  has  moved  over  the  troubled  waters 
of  society,  and  will  move  until  it  has  brought  order  and 
beauty  out  of  darkness  and  confusion.  The  men,  whom 
he  trained  and  into  whom  he  had  poured  most  largely 
his  own  spirit,  were  signs,  proofs,  that  a  new  kingdom 
had  come.  They  consecrated  themselves  to  a  work  at 
that  time  without  precedent,  wholly  original,  such  as 
had  not  entered  human  thought.  They  left  home,  pos- 
sessions, country,  went  abroad  into  strange  lands,  and 
not  only  put  life  in  peril,  but  laid  it  down,  to  spread  the 
truth  whicii  they  had  received  from  their  Lord,  to  make 
the  true  God,  even  the  Father,  known  to  his  blinded 
children,  to  make  the  Savior  known  to  the  sinner,  to 
make  life  and  immortality  known  to  the  dying,  to  give 
a  new  impulse  to  the  human  soul.  We  read  of  the  mis- 
sion of  the  apostles  as  if  it  were  a  thing  of  course.  The 
thought  perhaps  never  comes  to  us,  that  they  entered 
on  a  sphere  of  action  until  that  time  wholly  unexplored; 
that  not  a  track  had  previously  marked  their  path  ;  that 
the  great  conception,which  inspired  them,  of  converting 
a  world,  had  never  dawned  on  the  sublimest  intellect ; 
that  the  spiritual  love  for  every  human  being, which  car- 
ried them  over  oceans  and  through  deserts,  amid  scourg- 
ings  and  fastings  and  imprisonments  and  death,  was  a 


10 

new  light  from  heaven  breaking  out  on  earth,  a  new 
revelation  of  the  divinity  in  human  nature.  Then  it 
was,  that  man  began  to  yearn  for  man  with  a  Godlike 
love.  Then  a  new  voice  was  heard  on  earth,  the  voice 
of  prayer  for  the  recovery,  pardon,  happiness  of  a  world. 
It  was  most  strange,  it  was  a  miracle  more  worthy  of 
^admiration  than  the  raising  of  the  dead,  that  from  Judea, 
the  most  exclusive,  narrow  country  under  heaven,which 
hated  and  scorned  all  other  nations  and  shrunk  from 
their  touch  as  pollution,  should  go  forth  men  to  proclaim 
the  doctrine  of  human  brotherhood,  to  give  to  every  hu- 
man being,  however  fallen  or  despised,  assurances  of 
God's  infinite  love,  to  break  down  the  barriers  of  nation 
and  rank,  to  pour  out  their  blood  like  water  in  the  work 
of  diffusing  the  spirit  of  universal  love.  Thus  mightily 
did  the  character  of  Jesus  act  on  the  spirits  of  the  men 
with  whom  he  had  lived.  Since  that  time  the  civiliz- 
ed world  has  been  overwhelmed  by  floods  of  barbarians, 
and  ages  of  darkness  have  passed.  But  some  rays  of 
this  divine  light  break  on  us  through  the  thickest  dark- 
ness. The  new  impulse  given  by  Christianity  was  nev- 
er wholly  spent.  The  rude  sculpture  of  the  dark  ages 
represented  Jesus  hanging  from  his  cross;  and  however 
this  image  was  abused  to  purposes  of  superstition,  it  still 
spoke  to  men  of  a  philanthropy  stronger  than  death,  , 
which  felt  and  suffered  for  every  human  being;  and  a 
softening,  humanizing  virtue  went  from  it  which  even 
the  barbarian  could  not  wholly  resist.  In  our  own  times 
the  character  of  Jesus  is  exerting  more  conspicuously 
its  true  and  glorious  power.  We  have  indeed  little 
cause  for  boasting.  The  great  features  of  society  are 
still  hard  and  selfish.     The  worth  of  a  human  being  is 


11 

a  mystery  still  hid  from  an  immense  majority,  and  the 
most  enlightened  among  us  have  not  looked  beneath  the 
surface  of  this  great  truth.  Still  there  is  at  this  moment 
an  interest  in  human  nature,  a  sympathy  with  human 
suffering,  a  sensibility  to  the  abases  and  evils  which  de- 
form society,  a  faith  in  man's  capacity  of  progress,  a 
desire  of  human  progress,  a  desire  to  carry  to  every  hu- 
man being  the  means  of  rising  to  a  better  condition  and 
a  higher  virtue,  such  as  has  never  been  witnessed  be- 
fore. "  Amidst  the  mercenariness  which  would  degrade 
men  into  tools,  and  the  ambition  which  would  tread 
them  down  in  its  march  toward  power,  there  is  still  a 
respect  for  man  as  man,  a  recognition  of  his  rights,  a 
thirst  for  his  elevation,  which  is  the  surest  proof  of  a  ^ 
higher  comprehension  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  surest 
augury  of  a  happier  state  of  human  affairs.  Humanity 
and  justice  are  crying  out  in  more  and  more  piercing 
tones  for  the  suffering,  the  enslaved,  the  ignorant,  the 
poor,  the  prisoner,  the  orphan,  the  long-neglected  sea- 
man, the  benighted  heathen.  I  do  not  refer  merely  to 
new  institutions  for  humanity,  for  these  are  not  the  most 
unambiguous  proofs  of  progress.  We  see  in  the  com- 
mon consciousness  of  society,  in  the  general  feelings  of 
individuals,  traces  of  a  more  generous  recognition  of 
what  man  owes  to  man.  The  glare  of  outward  distinc- 
tion is  somewhat  dimmed.  The  prejudices  of  caste  and 
rank  are  abated.  A  man  is  seen  to  be  worth  more  than 
his  wardrobe  or  his  title.  It  begins  to  be  understood 
that  a  Christian  is  to  be  a  philanthropist,  and  that  in 
truth,  the  essence  of  Christianity  is  a  spirit  of  martyr- 
dom in  the  cause  of  mankind. 

This  subject  has  been   brought  to  my  mind  at  the 


12 

present  moment,  by  an  event  in  this  vicinity,  which  has 
drawn   little   attention,  but  which   I  ^could  not,  without 
self-reproach,  suffer   to   pass   unnoticed.     Within  a  few 
days,  a  great  and  good  man,  a  singular  example  of  the 
philanthropy  which  Jesus  Christ  came  to  breathe  into  the 
world,  has  been  taken  away  ;  and  as  it  was  my  happi- 
ness to  know  him  more  intimately  than  most  among  us, 
I  feel  as  if  I  were  called  to  bear  a  testimony  to  his  rare 
goodness,  and  to  hold  up  his  example  as  a  manifestation 
of  what  Christianity  can  accomplish  in  the  human  mind. 
I  refer  to  the  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  who  has  been  just- 
ly called  the  Apostle  of  Peace,  who  finished  his  course 
at  Brighton  during  the  last  week.     His   great  age,  for 
he  was  almost  eighty,  and  the  long,  and  entire  seclusion 
to  which   debility  had  compelled   him,   have  probably 
made  his  name  a  strange  one   to   some   who  hear  me. 
In  truth,  it  is  common  in  the  present  age,  for  eminent 
men  to  be  forgotten  during  their  lives,  if  their  lives  are 
much  prolonged.     Society  is  now  a   quick-shifting  pa- 
geant.    New  actors  hurry  the  old  ones  from  the  stage. 
The  former  stability  of  things   is   strikingly  impaired. 
The  authority  which  gathered  round  the  aged,  has  de- 
clined.    The  young  seize  impatiently  the  prizes  of  life. 
The    hurried,    bustling,   tumultuous,    feverish  Present, 
swallows  up  men's  thoughts,  so  that  he  who  retires  from 
active  pursuits,  is  as  little  known  to  the  rising  genera- 
tion as  if  he  were  dead.     It  is  not  wonderful  then,  that 
Dr  Worcester  was  so  far  forgotten    by   his  contempora- 
ries.    But  the  future  will  redress   the  wrongs  of  the 
present ;  and  in  the  progress  of  civilization,  history  will 
guard  more  and  more   sacredly   the  memories  of  men, 
who  have   advanced    before    their  age,    and    devoted 


13 

themselves   to   great,  but  neglected  interests  of  human- 

Dr  Worcester's  efforts  in   relation  to  war,   or  in  the 
cause  of  peace,  made  him  eminently  a  public  man  and 
constitute  his  chief  claim  to  public  consideration;  and 
these  were  not  founded  on  accidental   circumstances  or 
foreign  influences,  but  wholly  on  the  strong  and  peculiar 
tendencies  of  his  mind.     He  was  distinguished  above  all 
whom  I  have  known  by  his  comprehension  and  deep  feel- 
ing of  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  by  the  sympathy  with 
which  he  seized  on  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
manifestation  of  Perfect  Love,  by  the  honor  in  which  he 
held  the  mild,  humble,  forgiving,  disinterested  virtues  of 
our  reli«j[ion.     This  distinffuishins^  trait  of  his  mind  was 
embodied  and  brought  out  in  his  whole  life  and  conduct. 
He  especially  expressed  it  in  his  labors  for  the  promotion 
of  Universal  Peace  on  the  earth.     He  was  struck,  as  no 
other  man  within  my  acquaintance  has  been,  with  the 
monstrous  incongruity  between  the   spirit  of  Christian- 
ity and   the  spirit  of  Christian  communities,  between 
Christ's  teaching  of  peace,  mercy,  forgiveness,  and  the 
wars  which  divide  and  desolate  the  church  and  the  world. 
Every  man  has  particular  impressions  which  rule   over 
and  give  a  hue   to  his  mind.     Every  man  is  struck  by 
some  evils  rather  than  others.     The  excellent  individu- 
al of  whom   I   speak  was  shocked,  heart-smitten,  by 
nothing  so  much,  as  by   seeing,  that   man   hates  man, 
that  man  destroys  his  brother,  that  man   has   drenched 
the  earth  with  his  brother's  blood,  that  man  in  his  in- 
sanity has  crowned  the  murderer  of  his   race   with  the 
highest  honors;  and,  still   worse,   that   Christian  hates 
Christian,  that  church  wars  against  church,  that  differ- 


14 

ences  of  forms  and  opinions  array  against  each  other 
those  whom  Christ  died  to  join  together  in  closest  broth- 
erhood, and  that  Christian  zeal  is  spent  in  building  up 
sects,  rather  than  in  spreading  the  spirit  of  Christ  and 
enlarging  and  binding  together  the  universal  church. 
The  great  evil  on  which  his  mind  and  heart  fixed  was 
War,  Discord,  Intolerance,  the  substitution  of  force  for 
Reason  and  Love.  To  spread  peace  on  earth  became 
the  object  of  his  life.  Under  this  impulse  he  gave  birth 
and  impulse  to  Peace  Societies.  This  new  movement 
is  to  be  traced  to  him  above  all  other  men,  and  his  name, 
I  doubt  not,  will  be  handed  down  to  future  time  with 
increasing  veneration  as  the  '  Friend  of  Peace,'  as  hav- 
ing given  new  force  to  the  principles  which  are  grad- 
ually to  abate  the  horrors  and  ultimately  extinguish 
the  spirit  of  war. 

The  history  of  the  good  man,  as  far  as  I  have  learn- 
ed it,  is  singularly  instructive  and  encouraging.  He 
was  self-taught,  self-formed.  He  was  born  in  narrow 
circumstances,  and  to  the  age  of  tw^enty-one  was  a  la- 
borious farmer,  not  only  deprived  of  a  collegiate  educa- 
tion, but  of  the  advantages  which  may  be  enjoyed  in  a 
more  prosperous  family.  An  early  marriage  brought  on 
him  the  cares  of  a  growing  family.  Still  he  found  or 
rather  made  time  for  sufficient  improvements  to  intro- 
duce him  into  the  ministry  before  his  thirtieth  year. 
He  was  first  settled  in  a  parish  too  poor  to  give  him 
even  a  scanty  support ;  and  he  was  compelled  to  take  a 
farm  on  which  he  toiled  by  day,  whilst  in  the  evening 
he  was  often  obliged  to  use  a  mechanical  art  for  the 
benefit  of  his  family.  He  made  their  shoes,  an  occu- 
pation of  which  Coleridge  has  somewhere  remarked, 


15 

that  it  has  been  followed  by  a  greater  number  of  emi- 
nent men  than  anj  other  trade.  By  the  side  of  his 
work-bench  he  kept  ink  and  paper,  that  he  might  write 
down  the  interesting  thoughts,  which  he  traced  out  or 
which  rushed  on  him  amidst  his  humble  labors.  I  take 
pleasure  in  stating  this  part  of  his  history.  The  preju- 
dice against  manual  labor  as  inconsistent  with  personal 
dignity  is  one  of  the  most  irrational  and  pernicious,  es- 
pecially in  a  free  country.  It  shows  how  little  we  com- 
prehend the  spirit  of  our  institutions  and  how  deeply 
we  are  tainted  with  the  narrow  maxims  of  the  old 
aristocracies  of  Europe.  Here  was  a  man,  uniting  great 
intellectual  improvement  with  refinement  of  manners, 
who  had  been  trained  under  unusual  severity  of  toil. 
This  country  has  lost  much  physical  and  moral  strength, 
and  its  prosperity  is  at  this  moment  depressed,  by  the 
common  propensity  to  forsake  the  plough  for  less  manly 
pursuits,  which  are  thought  however  to  promise  greater 
dignity  as  well  as  ease. 

His  first  book  was  a  series  of  letters  to  a  Baptist  min- 
ister, and  in  this  he  gave  promise  of  the  direction 
which  the  efforts  of  his  life  were  to  assume.  The  great 
object  of  these  letters,  was  not  to  settle  the  controver- 
sies about  baptism,  about  the  mode  of  administering  it 
whether  by  immersion  or  sprinkling,  or  about  the  proper 
subjects  of  it  whether  children  or  adults  alone.  His 
aim  was,  to  show  that  these  were  inferior  questions, 
that  dilferences  about  these  ought  not  to  divide  Christ- 
ians, that  the  'close  communion'  as  it  is  called  of  ihe 
Baptists  was  inconsistent  with  the  liberal  sf)irit  of  Christ- 
ianity, and  that  this  obstruction  to  Christian  unity 
ought  to  be  removed. 


16    .  / 

His  next  publication  was  what  brought  him  into  no- 
tice and  gave  him  an  important  place  in  our  theological 
history.  It  was  a  publication  on  the  Trinity,  and  what 
is  worthy  of  remark,  it  preceded  the  animated  contro- 
versy on  that  point  which  a  few  years  after  agitated 
this  city  and  commonwealth.  The  mind  of  Dr  Worces- 
ter was  turned  to  this  topic  not  by  foreign  impulses  but 
by  its  own  workings.  He  had  been  brought  up  in  the 
strictest  sect,  that  is  as  a  Calvinist.  His  first  doubts 
as  to  the  Trinity  arose  from  the  confusion,  the  perplex- 
ity, into  which  his  mind  was  thrown  by  this  doctrine  in 
his  acts  of  devotion.  To  worship  three  persons  as  one 
and  the  same  God,  as  one  and  the  same  being,  seemed 
to  him  difficult  if  not  impossible.  He  accordingly  re- 
solved to  read  and  examine  the  Scriptures  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true  doc- 
trine respecting  God  and  the  true  rank  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  views  at  which  he  arrived  were  so  different  from 
what  prevailed  around  him,  and  some  of  them  so  pecu- 
liar that  he  communicated  them  to  the  public  under  the 
rather  quaint  title  of  *  Bible  News  relating  to  the  Fath- 
er, Son  and  Holy  Sjnrit.'  His  great  aim  was  to  prove, 
that  the  Supreme  God  was  one  person,  even  the  Fath- 
er, and  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  Supreme  God  but 
his  Son  in  a  strict  and  peculiar  sense.  This  idea  of  '  the 
peculiar  and  natural  sonship'  of  Christ,  by  which  he 
meant  that  Jesus  was  derived  from  the  very  substance 
of  the  Father,  had  taken  a  strong  hold  on  his  mind,  and 
he  insisted  on  it  with  as  much  confidence  as  was  con- 
sistent with  his  deep  sense  of  fallibility.  But,  as  might 
be  expected  in  so  wise  and  spiritual  a  man,  it  faded  more 
and  more  from  his  mind,  in  proportion  as  he   became 


17 

acquainted  with  and  assimilated  to  the  true  glory  of  his 
Master.  In  one  of  his  unpublished  manuscripts,  he 
gives  an  account  of  his  change  of  view  in  this  particu- 
lar, and,  without  disclaiming  expressly  the  doctrine  which 
had  formerly  seemed  so  precious,  he  informs  us  that  it 
had  lost  its  importance  in  his  sight.  The  Moral,  Spir- 
itual dignity  of  Christ,  had  risen  on  his  mind  in  such 
splendor  as  to  dim  his  old  idea  of  'natural  sonship.'  In 
one  place  he  affirms,  '  I  do  not  recollect  an  instance  [in 
the  scriptures]  in  which  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  loved, 
honored,  or  praised  on  any  other  ground  than  his  Moral 
dignity.'  This  moral  greatness  he  declares  to  be  the 
highest  with  which  Jesus  was  clothed,  and  expresses 
his  conviction,  '  that  the  controversies  of  Christians 
about  his  natural  dignity,  had  tended  very  little  to 
the  honor  of  their  Master,  or  to  their  own  advantage.' 
The  manuscript  to  which  I  refer  was  written  after  his 
seventieth  year,  and  is  very  illustrative  of  his  character. 
It  shows,  that  his  love  of  truth  was  stronger  than  the 
tenacity  with  which  age  commonly  clings  to  old  ideas. 
It  shows  him  superior  to  the  theory,  which  more  than 
any  other  he  had  considered  his  own,  and  which  had 
been  the  fruit  of  very  laborious  study.  It  shows  how 
strongly  he  felt,  that  Progress  was  the  law  and .  end  of 
his  being,  and  how  he  continued  to  make  progress  to 
the  last  hour.  The  w^ork  called  '  Bible  News'  drew 
much  attention,  and  converted  not  a  few  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  proper  unity  of  God.  Its  calm,  benignant  spirit 
had  no  small  influence  in  disarming  prejudice  and  un- 
kindness.  He  found  however  that  his  defection  from 
his  original  faith  had  exposed  him  to  much  suspicion 
and  reproach  ;  and  he  became  at  length  so  painfully  ira- 

3 


18 

pressed  with  the  intolerance  which  l)is  work  had  excit- 
ed, that  he  published  another  shorter  work  called 
*  Letters  to  Trinitarians,'  a  work  breathing  the  very 
spirit  of  Jesus,  and  intended  to  teach,  that  diversities  of 
opinion,  on  subjects  the  most  mysterious  and  perplexing, 
ought  not  to  sever  friends,  to  dissolve  the  Christian 
tie,  to  divide  the  church,  to  fasten  on  the  dissenter  from 
the  common  faith  the  charge  of  heresy,  to  array  the 
disciples  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  in  hostile  bands.  These 
works  obtained  such  favor,  that  he  was  solicited  to  leave 
the  obscure  town  in  which  he  ministered,  and  to  take 
charge,  in  this  place,  of  a  periodical  called  at  iirst  the 
Christian  Disciple,  and  now  better  known  as  the  Chris- 
tian Examiner.  At  that  time,  (about  twenty-five  years 
ago,)  I  first  saw  him.  Long  and  severe  toil,  and  a 
most  painful  disease,  had  left  their  traces  on  his  once 
athletic  frame  ;  but  his  countenance  beamed  with  a  be- 
nignity which  at  once  attracted  confidence  and  affection. 
For  several  years  he  consulted  me  habitually  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  work  which  he  edited.  I  recollect  with  ad- 
miration the  gentleness,  humility,  and  sweetness  of  tem- 
per, with  which  he  endured  freedoms,  corrections,  re- 
trenchments, some  of  which  I  feel  now  to  have  been 
unwarranted,  and  which  no  other  man  would  so  kindly 
have  borne.  This  work  was  commenced  very  much  for 
doctrinal  discussions  ;  but  his  spirit  could  not  brook  such 
limitations,  and  he  used  its  pages  more  and  more  for  the 
dissemination  of  his  principles  of  philanthropy  and  peace. 
At  length  he  gave  these  principles  to  the  world,  in  a 
form  which  did  much  to  decide  his  future  career.  He 
published  a  pamphlet  calleJ  *  A  Solemn  Review  of  the 
Custom  of  War.'     It  bore  no  name,  and  appeared  with- 


19 

out  recommendation,  but  it  immediately  seized  on  at- 
tention. It  was  read  by  multitudes  in  this  country,  then 
published  in  England,  and  translated,  as  I  have  heard, 
into  several  languages  of  Europe.  Such  was  the  im- 
pression made  by  this  work,  that  a  new  association, 
called  the  Peace  Society  of  Massachusetts,  was  institut- 
ed in  this  place.  I  well  recollect  the  day  of  its  forma- 
tion in  yonder  house,  then  the  parsonage  of  this  parish, 
and  if  there  was  a  happy  man  that  day  on  earth,  it  was 
the  founder  of  this  institution.  This  society  gave  birth 
to  all  the  kindred  ones  in  this  country,  and  its  influence 
was  felt  abroad.  Dr  Worcester  assumed  the  charge  of 
its  periodical,  and  devoted  himself  for  years  to  this 
cause,  with  unabating  faith  and  zeal  ;  and  it  may  be 
doubted,  whether  any  man,  who  ever  lived,  contributed 
more  than  he,  to  spread  just  sentiments  on  the  subject 
of  War,  and  to  hasten  the  era  of  universal  peace.  He 
began  his  efforts  in  the  darkest  day,  when  the  whole 
civilized  world  was  shaken  by  conflict,  and  threatened 
with  military  despotism.  He  lived  to  see  more  than 
twenty  years  of  general  peace,  and  to  see  through  these 
years,  a  multiplication  of  national  ties,  an  extension  of 
commercial  communications,  an  establishment  of  new 
connections  between  Christians  and  learned  men  through 
the  world,  and  a  growing  reciprocity  of  friendly  and  be- 
neficent influence  among  different  states,  all  giving  aid 
to  the  principles  of  peace,  and  encouraging  hopes  which 
a  century  ago  would  have  been  deemed  insane. 

The  abolition  of  war,  to  which  this  good  man  devoted 
himself,  is  no  longer  to  be  set  down  as  a  creation  of  fan- 
cy, a  dream  of  enthusiastic  philanthropy.  War  rests  on 
opinion,  and  opinion  is  more  and  more   withdrawing  its 


20 

support.  War  rests  on  contempt  of  -human  nature,  on 
the  long,  mournful  habit  of  regarding  the  mass  of  human 
beings  as  machines,  or  as  animals  having  no  higher  use 
than  to  be  shot  at  and  murdered,  for  the  glory  of  a  chief, 
for  the  seating  of  this  or  that  family  on  a  throne,  for  the 
petty  interests  or  selfish  rivalries  which  have  inflamed 
states  to  conflict.  Let  the  worth  of  a  human  being  be 
felt ;  let  the  mass  of  a  people  be  elevated  ;  let  it  be  un- 
derstood that  a  man  was  made  to  enjoy  unalienable 
right,  to  improve  lofty  powers,  to  secure  a  vast  happi- 
ness; and  a  main  pillar  of  war  will  fall.  And  is  it  not 
plain  that  these  views  are  taking  place  of  the  contempt 
in  which  man  has  so  long  been  held  ?  War  finds 
another  support  in  the  prejudices  and  partialities  of  a 
narrow  patriotism.  Let  the  great  Christian  principle 
of  human  brotherhood  be  comprehended,  let  the  Chris- 
tian spirit  of  universal  love  gain  ground,  and  just  so  fast 
the  custom  of  war,  so  long  the  pride  of  men,  will  become 
their  abhorrence  and  execration.  It  is  encouraging  to 
see  how  outward  events  are  concurring  with  the  influ- 
ences of  Christianity  in  promoting  peace,  how  an  exclu- 
sive nationality  is  yielding  to  growing  intercourse,  how 
different  nations  by  mutual  visits,  by  the  interchange  of 
thoughts  and  products,  by  studying  one  another's  lan- 
guage and  literature,  by  union  of  efforts  in  the  cause  of 
religion  and  humanity,  are  growing  up  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  belonging  to  one  great  family.  Every  rail  road 
connecting  distant  regions,  may  be  regarded  as  accom- 
plishing a  ministry  of  peace.  Every  year  which  passes 
w^ithout  war,  by  interweaving  more  various  ties  of  in- 
terest and  friendship,  is  a  pledge  of  coming  years  of 
peace.     The  prophetic  faith,  with  which  Dr  Worcester, 


21 

in  the  midst  of  universal  war,  looked  forward  to  a  hap- 
pier era,  and  which  was  smiled  at  as  enthusiasm  or 
credulity,  has  already  received  a  sanction  beyond  his 
fondest  hopes  by  the  wonderful  progress  of  human  af- 
fairs. 

On  the  subject  of  War,  Dr  Worcester  adopted  opin- 
ions which  are  thought  by  some  to  be  extreme.  He 
interpreted  literally  the  precept,  Resist  not  evil  ;  and 
he  believed  that  nations  as  well  as  individuals  would 
find  safety  as  well  as  '  fulfill  righteousness  '  in  yielding 
it  literal  obedience.  One  of  the  most  striking  traits  of 
his  character,  was  his  confidence  in  the  powder  of  love,  I 
might  say,  in  its  omnipotence.  He  believed,  that  the 
surest  way  to  subdue  a  foe,  was  to  become  his  friend  ; 
that  a  true  benevolence  was  a  surer  defence  than 
swords,  or  artillery,  or  walls  of  adamant.  He  believed, 
that  no  mightier  man  ever  trod  the  soil  of  America  than 
William  Penn,  when  entering  the  wilderness  unarmed, 
and  stretching  out  to  the  savage  a  hand  which  refused 
all  earthly  weapons,  in  token  of  brotherhood  and  peace. 
There  was  something  grand  in  the  calm  confidence,  with 
which  he  expressed  his  conviction  of  the  superiority  of 
moral  to  physical  force.  Armies,  fiery  passions,  quick 
resentments,  and  the  spirit  of  vengeance  miscalled  hon- 
or, seemed  to  him  weak,  low  instruments,  inviting,  and 
often  hastening  the  ruin  which  they  are  used  to  avert. 
Many  will  think  him  in  error  ;  but  if  so,  it  was  a  grand 
thought  which  led  him  astray. 

At  the  age  of  seventy,  he  felt  as  if  he  had  discharged 
his  mission  as  a  preacher  of  peace,  and  resigned  his  of- 
fice as  Secretary  to  the  Society,  to  which  he  had  given 
the  strength  of  many  years.     He  did   not,  however,  re- 


22 

tire  to  unfruitful  repose.  Bodily  infirmity  had  increased, 
so  that  he  was  very  much  confined  to  nis  house  ;  but  he 
returned  with  zeal  to  the  studies  of  his  early  life,  and 
produced  two  theological  works,  one  on  the  atonement, 
the  other  on  human  depravity  or  the  moral  state  of  man 
by  nature,  which  I  regard  as  among  the  most  useful 
books  on  these  long  agitated  subjects.  These  writings, 
particularly  the  last,  have  failed  of  the  popularity  which 
they  merit,  in  consequence  of  a  defect  of  style,  which 
may  be  traced  to  his  defective  education,  and  which 
naturally  increased  witb  years.  I  refer  to  his  diffuse- 
ness,  to  his  inability  to  condense  his  thoughts.  His 
writings,  however,  are  not  wanting  in  merits  of  style. 
They  are  simple  and  clear.  They  abound  to  a  remark- 
able degree  in  ingenious  illustration,  and  they  have  often 
the  charm  which  original  thinking  always  gives  to  com- 
position. He  was  truly  an  original  writer,  not  in  the 
sense  of  making  great  discoveries,  but  in  the  sense  of 
writing  from  his  own  mind,  and  not  from  books,  or  tradi- 
tion. What  he  wrote,  had  perhaps  been  written  before  ; 
but  in  consequence  of  his  limited  reading,  it  was  new  to 
himself,  and  came  to  him  with  the  freshness  of  discove- 
ry. Sometimes  great  thoughts  flashed  on  his  mind,  as 
if  they  had  been  inspirations  ;  and  in  writing  his  last 
book,  he  seems  to  have  felt  as  if  some  extraordinary 
light  had  been  imparted  from  above.  After  his  seventy- 
fifth  year  he  ceased  to  write  books,  but  his  mind  lost 
nothing  of  its  activity.  He  was  so  enfeebled  by  a  dis- 
tressing disease,  that  he  could  converse  but  for  a  few 
moments  at  a  time  ;  yet  he  entered  into  all  the  great 
movements  of  the  age,  with  an  interest  distinguished 
from  the  fervor  of  youth,  only  by  its  mildness  and  its  se- 


23 

rene  trust.  The  attempts  made,  in  some  of  our  cities, 
to  propagate  atheistical  principles,  gave  him  much  con- 
cern, and  he  applied  himself  to  fresh  inquiries  into  the 
proofs  of  the  existence  and  perfections  of  God,  hoping 
to  turn  his  labors  to  the  account  of  his  erring  fellow- 
creatures.  With  this  view,  he  entered  on  the  study  of 
nature  as  a  glorious  testimony  to  its  almighty  author. 
I  shall  never  forget  the  dehght  which  illumined  his  coun- 
tenance a  short  time  ago,  as  he  told  me,  that  he  had  just 
been  reading  the  history  of  the  coral,  the  insect  which 
raises  islands  in  the  sea.  '  How  wonderfully,'  he  ex- 
claimed,  '  is  God's  providence  revealed  in  these  little 
creatures.'  The  last  subject  to  which  he  devoted  his 
thoughts,  was  slavery.  His  mild  spirit  could  never  rec- 
oncile itself  to  the  methods  in  which  this  evil  is  often 
assailed  ;  but  the  greatness  of  the  evil  he  deeply  felt, 
and  he  left  several  essays  on  this  as  on  the  preceding 
subject,  which,  if  they  shall  be  found  unfit  for  publication, 
will  still  bear  witness  to  the  intense,  unfaltering  interest 
with  which  he  bound  himself  to  the  cause  of  mankind. 
I  have  thus  given  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  a  good 
man  who  lived  and  died  the  lover  of  his  kind  and  the 
admiration  of  his  friends.  Two  views  of  him  particu- 
larly impressed  me.  The  first  was  the  unity,  the  har- 
mony of  his  character.  He  had  no  jarring  elements. 
His  whole  nature  had  been  blended  and  melted  into 
one  strong,  serene  love.  His  mission  was  to  preach 
peace,  and  he  preached  it  not  on  set  occasions,  or  by 
separate  efforts,  but  in  his  whole  life.  It  breathed  in  his 
tones.  It  beamed  from  his  venerable  countenance. 
He  carried  it,  where  it  is  least  apt  to  be  found,  into  the 
religious  controversies,  which   raged   around   him   with 


24 

great  vehemence,  but  which  never  excited  him  to  a 
word  of  anger  or  intolerance.  All  \ny  impressions  of 
him  are  harmonious.  I  recollect  no  discord  in  his  beau- 
tiful life  ;  and  this  serenitj  was  not  the  result  of  torpid- 
ness  or  tameness ;  for  his  whole  life  was  a  conflict  with 
what  he  thought  error.  He  made  no  compromise  with 
the  world,  and  jet  he  loved  it  as  deeply  and  constantly 
as  if  it  had  responded  in  shouts  to  all  his  views  and 
feelings. 

The  next  great  impression  which  I  received  from  him, 
was  that  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  mind  to  its  own  hap- 
piness, or  of  its  independence  on  outward  things.  He 
was  for  years  debilitated  and  often  a  great  sufferer;  and 
his  circumstances  were  very  narrow,  compelling  him  to 
so  strict  an  economy,  that  he  was  sometimes  represent- 
ed, though  falsely,  as  wanting  the  common  comforts  of 
life.  In  this  tried  and  narrow  condition,  he  was  among 
the  most  contented  of  men.  He  spoke  of  his  old  age 
as  among  the  happiest  portions  if  not  the  very  happiest 
in  his  life.  In  conversation  his  religion  manifested  itself 
in  gratitude  more  frequently  than  in  any  other  form. 
When  I  have  visited  him  in  his  last  years,  and  looked  on 
his  serene  countenance,  and  heard  his  cheerful  voice,  and 
seen  the  youthful  earnestness  with  which  he.  was  read- 
ing a  variety  of  books,  and  studying  the  great  interests 
of  humanity,  I  have  felt  how  little  of  this  outward  world 
is  needed  to  our  happiness.  I  have  felt  the  greatness  of 
the  human  spirit,  which  could  create  to  itself  such  joy 
from  its  own  resources.  I  have  felt  the  folly,  the  insan- 
ity of  that  prevailing  worldliness,  which,  in  accumulating 
outward  good,  neglects  the  imperishable  soul.  On  leav- 
ing his  house  and  turning  my  face  toward  this  city,  I 


25 

have  said  to  myself,  how  much  richer  is  this  poor 
man  than  the  richest  who  dwell  yonder.  I  have  been 
ashamed  of  my  own  dependence  on  outward  good. 
I  am  always  happy  to  express  my  obligations  to  the 
benefactors  of  my  mind  ;  and  I  owe  it  to  Dr  Wor- 
cester to  say,  that  my  acquaintance  with  him  gave  me 
clearer  comprehension  of  the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  of 
the  dignity  of  a  man. 

And  he  has  gone  to  his  reward.  He  has  gone  to 
that  world,  of  which  he  carried  in  his  own  breast  so 
rich  an  earnest  and  pledge,  to  a  world  of  Peace.  He 
has  gone  to  Jesus  Christ,  whose  spirit  he  so  deeply 
comprehended  and  so  freely  imbibed  ;  and  to  God, 
whose  universal,  all-suifering,  all-embracing  love  he 
adored  and  in  a  humble  measure  made  manifest  in 
his  own  life.  But  he  is  not  wholly  gone  ;  not  gone 
in  heart,  for  I  am  sure  that  a  better  world  has  height- 
ened, not  extinguished,  his  affection  for  his  race ;  and 
not  gone  in  influence,  for  his  thoughts  remain  in  his 
works,  and  his  memory  is  laid  up  as  a  sacred  treas- 
ure in  many  minds.  A  spirit  so  beautiful  ought  to 
multiply  itself  in  those  to  whom  it  is  made  known. 
May  we  all  be  incited  by  it  to  a  more  grateful,  cheer- 
ful love  of  God,  and  a  serener,  gentler,  nobler  love  of 
our  fellow-creatures. 
4 


NOTE. 

I  cannot  resist  the  desire  to  insert  heie  a  few  extracts  from  two  letters  relat- 
ing to  Dr  Worcester,  the  first  from  one  of  his  children,  whose  filial  virtue  con- 
tributed largely  to  the  comfort  and  happiness  of  his  last  years,  and  the  second 
from  the  Rev.  Mr  Austin,  of  Brighton. 

EXTRACTS     FROM    THE    FIRST    LETTER. 

'  My  father  was  blessed  with  pious  ancestors.  His  grandfather  was  reputed 
a  devoted  minister.  Both  his  grand-parents  took  a  deep  interest  in  his  welfare, 
and,  with  his  pious  parents,  no  doubt,  offered  fervent  supplication  that  he  might 
early  devote  himself  to  the  service  of  God.  He  often  remarked  that  he  could 
not  remember,  when  he  had  not  a  love  for  divine  things.  A  few  days  previous 
to  his  death,  he  mentioned  a  circumstance  which  deeply  interested  me.  He 
said,  that,  in  the  absence  of  his  father,  his  mother  and  grandmother  were  in  the 
habit  of  conducting  family  worship,  until  he  arrived  to  the  age  ef  twelve.  From 
that  period,  he  said,  th»t  he,  being  the  oldest  child,  was  called  upon  to  perform 
this  service.  The  sacredness,  which,  from  early  life,  he  attached  to  the  observ- 
ance of  this  delightful  duty,  may  thus  be  accounted  for.  Even  when  there 
were  strong  indications  of  mental  aberration,  as  there  often  were  in  the  lethargic 
turns  with  vihich  he  was  afflicted  (or  several  years  previous  to  his  death,  he 
would  call  the  family  together  at  the  customary  hour,  and  address  the  throne 
of  grace  in  an  affectionate  and  collected  manner. 

'  He  had  no  advantages  for  an  education,  excepting  what  the  common  public 
schools  of  that  day  afforded.  He  was  industrious,  and  very  econoinical  of  time, 
and  having  a  thirst  for  knowledge,  improved  all  his  moments  to  some  good  pur- 
pose. At  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  was  married,  and  removed  to  Thornton, 
N.  H.  At  what  time  he  made  a  profession  of  religion,  I  cannot  tell ;  but  the 
deep  interest  which  he  look  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  people,  and  the  af- 
fection manifested  on  their  part,  suggested  to  their  aged  minister  the  idea,  that 
his  own  services  could  be  spared,  and  that  my  father  should  prepare  himself  to 
be  his  successor.  With  the  care  of  a  family,  dependent  entirely  upon  his  labor 
for  support,  and  with  few  books  except  his  Bible,  he  commenced.  The  minis- 
ter above  alluded  to,  I  think,  afforded  him  such  assistance  as  he  was  able;  but 
it  was  very  evident,  that  the  Great  Teacher  was  his  principal  instructor,  as  he 
possessed  much  of  his  spirit. 

*  He  was  in  the  habit  of  speaking  of  his  death  with  perfect  composure  for 
iTiany  years,  and  calculated  to  have  all  his  affairs  arranged  and  settled  daily,  aod 


27 

appeared  to  be  constantly  waiting  for  the  coming  of  the  Bridegroom.     If  there 
was  one  grace,  which  shone  more  conspicuously  in  his  character   than  another, 
I  think  it  was  gratitude;  and  surely  no  family  have  greater  reason  for  gratitude 
than  we  have  had.     The  debt  is  great  to  earthly  benefactors,  but  how  immense 
our  obligations  to  our  Divine  benefactor.     During  my  dear  father's  last  illness, 
when  he  was  relieved  from  distress,  or  after  refreshing  sleep,  he  would  exclaim, 
*  Give  God  the  praise  ;  help  me  to   praise  him.'    For  the  last  few  weeks  of  his 
life,  he  was  too  weak  to  converse  much.     He  appeared  to  take  great  delight  in 
hearing  the  Scriptures  read,  and  in  uniting  with  Christians  in  prayer.     His  pre- 
cious spirit  returned  to  God  who  gave  it,  twenty  minutes  past  nine  in  the  eve- 
ning of  Oct.  31,  1837.     When  the  clock  struck  seven  he  inquired  the  time,  and 
whether  it  was  seven  in  the  morning  or  evening.    On  being  told,  he  expressed 
his  surprise  that  it  was  no  later,  and  said, '  I  hope  that  I  shall  be  in  Heaven  be- 
fore seven  in  the  morning.'     A  friend  replied, '  I  trust  you  will.'    He  was  ask- 
ed if  he  should  like  to  have  prayer  again.     He  answered  very  cheerfully,  and 
with  a  smile  upon  his  countenance  turned  to  a  friend  present,  and  said,  '0  yes, 
do.'     A  little  before  nine  he  requested  that  the  death  of  Christ  might  be  read 
to  him.     He  was  asked  where.     He  replied  in  Matthew.     A  turn  of  distress 
prevented  this  request  being  complied  with  for  some   minutes,  after  which  he 
was  asked  if  he  could  now  listen ;  he  said  •  Yes,'  and  appeared  to  attend  with 
interest.     This  was  his  last  request,  ai;d  these  were  his  last  words.' 

EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  SECOND  LETTER. 

'  In  reply  to  my  question,  whether  for  the  most  part  of  his  life,  though  then 
so  feeble,  he  had  not  enjoyed  good  health,  he  confessed  that  he  had  ;  but  stated 
that  an  abscess,  at  about  the  age  of  seventeen,  reducing  him  for  a  long  period  to 
almost  total  weakness,  and  a  dropsical  affection  of  the  legs  in  after  life,  from 
which  with  great  difficulty  he  recovered,  had  each  nearly  proved  fatal  to  him. 
In  connection  with  these  reminiscences,  and  while  my  thoughts  were  pursuing 
the  lamentable  consequences  to  the  community,  of  the  death  of  such  a  man  at 
such  a  time,  he  added  in  substance  the  following  anecdote. 

'  Soon  after  his  marriage  with  his  first  wife,  which  took  place  on  his  2lst  an- 
niversary birth-day,  Nov.  25,  1779,  important  business  called  him  to  cross  Mad 
River,  a  branch  of  the  Merrimack.  Sudden  severe  frosts,  and  alternate  thaws 
had  encumbered  the  river  with  huge  masses  of  ice,  high  piled  above  a  dam. 
Over  this  dangerous  sort  of  bridge  it  was  necessary  to  pass,  and  with  the  reso- 
lution and  promptitude,  or  rather  rashness,  as  he  termed  it,  of  incipient  man- 
hood, it  was  passed,  and  in  safety.  His  business  successfully  transacted,  in  the 
afternoon  he  atten)pted  to  return;  but  the  river,  swoln  in  the  interim,  present- 
ed a  greater  obstacle  than  before.  However,  remembering  his  duties  at  home, 
imagining  the  anxiety  of  his  new  bride  and  his  friends,  should  he  remain  till 
next  day  on  that  side  the  river,  and  committing  himself  to  God,  he  commenced 
clambering  over  the  ice  ridges,  now  rendered  so  frightfully  insecure  as  to  make 
him  heartily  regret,  in  the  middle  of  the  passage,  that  he  had  ever  attempted  it. 
Habitual  trust  in  God  revived  his  drooping  courage,  and  pressing  on  at  .xtreme 
hazard,  he  at  length  stood  upon  the  shore,  and  hardly  had  he  reached  it,  when. 


28 

looking  back  on  his  perilous  path, he  beheld  with  consternation,  the  whole  body 
orice  give  way,  and  with  tremendous  noise,  rush  as  in  an  instant  down  the 
stream.  Never  was  his  consciousness  of  the  divine  goodness  so  intense,  or  his 
grateful  heart  so  full.  He  had  well  nigh  fainted  with  excess  of  emotion,  and 
his  friends  found  him  scarcely  in  a  condition  to  recotint  his  deliverance. 

« The  venerable  Dr  Worcester  lived  to  see  the  fourth  generation,  and  died 
at^ed  79.  A  few  days  before  his  death,  he  told  me  that  his  religious  views 
were  unchan^^^d,  and  that  he  derived  from  them  peculiar  comfort  ;  and  to  the 
Rev.  Mr  Lamson,  who  also  prayed  with  him  more  than  once,  he  said,  '♦  Pray 
ibat  1  may  have  no  will  of  my  own/'  ' 


14  DAY  USE, 

j^^nJRN  TO  DESK  PKOM  WHICH  BORROWBD 

LOAN  DEPT. 


REC 


LD  2lA-60m-3,*65 
(F2336sl0)476B 


General  L»brar7 

University  of  CaUfornia 

Berkeley 


YB  7236 


ivil28819 

BTU3 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


.'    . .  V 


■;  »-■; 


'^:.;u.  ^'r*.i:** 


